V> .V' 



:-.-o*'' 



r.'b 



S^^ 



^.. V^' 



O^ -^r.. 






■.V << 



.^' ■\ 



,x v., 






>.^" %. 



%^^''^^^ 4^,.^.<'^'r.^ 







,V' * 



A^^' ' 



^ .A 



,0o 






^•\6^ 



^.<^' 

,^^'% 






s- ,^ 






^.'i'^ 






A' ./> 









' . . s ^ A 



,^^>' ^ 



'^ '"^^ <^ 



' -.0 



<. " » -7- ■> V 11 \V C^. •' » 1 \ ^^ 



x\-^' ':s.. 






"^.c^ 



,\' 





'^^ 






^-S 


%-; 




*?* 




.^'^ 










■^^ .^^' 

.^^^. 












^ '%^- 












o -■ • 

A ■ 









^' \^ 



V 



-^^ 



.^^^ 






-> 



y 



.^ ^^.. 













"^ ^^ ~'/^ ^'&^^' '^^^ 







METHODISM AND SLAVERY: 



WITH OTHER MATTERS IN 



CONTROVERSY BETWEEN THE NORTH AND THE SOUTH; 



BEINO A 



RE VI 



OF THE 



MANIFESTO OF THE MAJORITY, 



IN REPLY TO 



'^''^^^Sl^^lr?^^''^ MINORITY, OF THE LATE GENERAL CONFERENCE OF 
THE METHODIST E. CHURCH, IN THE CASE OF BISHOP ANDREW 




/X ^Y H. B. BASCOM, D. D. 

^^ PRESIDENT OF TRANSYLVANIA UNIVERSITY 



"The unjust judge is the capital remorer of land-marks." Lord Bacoit 
from it." Sir Thomas Moore. ^ ' examine the sparks, which irregularly fly 



FRANKFORT, KY. 

HODGES, TODD & PRUETT, PRINTERS. 
1843. 



c/ 



Entered according to an Act of Congress, in the year 1845, by the Author, in the Clerk's Office 
of the District Court of the District of Kentucky. 



« • pi' 



KEVIEW, &c. 



The more ostensible merits of the controversy, in the case of Bishop AnJreio, have 
received a degree of publicity, through the medium of the Press, which seems to super- 
cede the necessity of any great extent or minuteness of preliminary statement, in onler 
to approach the subject fairly and without disadvantage, in an attempt to understand it 
and estimate its merits, whether as it regards the parties in controversy, or the Church 
at large. All the material facts and principles, involved in the controversy, pro and 
con, stand out with sufficient prominence, in the Protest of the Minority and Reply of 
the Majority; and the facts and reasonings, or rather assumptions and conclusions of 
these Documents, may be considered, as furnishing the proper issue between the parties, 
and the true text of the discussion, upon which we enter. And as the subject of sepa- 
ration, as It regards the North and South of the Methodist Episcopal Church, turns main- 
ly, upon the question of slavery, not as connected with the case of Bishop Andrew, but i/ 
in Its broader and more general aspects, I shall principally confine myself to the appro- 
priate topics, indicated by such limitation. Appeal to other matters, such as the pro- 
ceedings in the case of Bishop Andrew, and kindred developements, will be resorted to 
by the way, as legitimate methods of proof and illustration, in relation to the facts and 
principles involved in the discussion. Believing that a careful analysis of the whole 
movement, on the part of the late General Conference, in the case of Bishop Andrew, 
will show that the assault upon him, was but a masked battery, intended to conceal the 
real point and object of attack, I shall rely less upon the extra-legal proceedings in his 
case, than upon other aspects and relations, in which the subject presents itself." In the 
instance of the struggle alluded to, it was obviously, on the part of the North, a contest 
to settle a principle unknown to the constitution and laws of the Church, and the case of 
Bishop Andrew was made the occasion and pretext, to bring the matter to trial. The 
prosecution of Bishop Andrew was a moot case, the determination of which not ac- 
cording to law, but in the chancery of party tactics, was to lead to the ulterior results 
of additional legislative action, on the subject of slavery. The whole course of the 
majority shows clearly, that they did not consider Bishop Andrew's connection with 
slavery, as an offence in the judgment of law, but as something that ought to be an of- 
fence. They thought it fit to constitute an offence, and labored long andl.ard to accom- 
plish it. It was an extra-legal movement, to accomplish a purpose unkno.vn to the law, 
and an act, therefore, the manner of which was as unlawful as the matter. It was seeri 
and felt, that no statutable process could be sustained against the Bishop, and hence a 
resort to expost facto legislation, and by consequence, an invasion of constitutional 
right. In the case of Bishop Andrew, we have a judicial sentence, in the shape of a ^- 
declaratory judgment, based not upon law, but upon opinion over-riding law— the -sense" 
of the General Conference, as to what law ought to be-as to what^must become law, 
before the North wall cease to agitate the subject of slavery, and add to existin- en- 
croachments, upon the rights and peace of the South. The authority of the General 
Conference to enquire into the conduct of Bishop Andrew, and deal with him according 
to law and rule, no ore questions ; it was the undoubted right of the Conference. But 



when a lawful authority, proceeds to unlawful demands or action, and hy means equally 
unknown to lavv and usage, the claim of authority, by the trespass upon right, is vitia- 
ted, and the procedure becomes null and void; and this we conceive to have been the case 
in t!ic instance of Bishop Andrew. Not only was Bishop Andrew arraigned, but under 
the hallucination of the absolutism of the General Conference, the law itself was ar- 
raigned, and ajpai-t from its arbitrament, the judgment of a majority became the only 
rule of action and standard of right. We propose an examination of the subject, hav- 
ing for its object, a simple statement of the reasons and facts, which compelled the South 
to assume the position and take the stand they did, with regard to a separation of the 
general or federal jurisdiction of the Church, in order to avoid the more serious evil of 
utter division and disunion, throughout the whole Church. We may have conceived of 
the case too strongly, and whether right or wrong, in our convictions, it seems proper 
that our conduct and the motives by which we were actuated, should be presented in 
their true light. As distinguished northern men, are as far from agreein^f among them- 
selves, as the North and the South are, with regard to the real character of their own 
action, we ought certainly to be judged, with some share of the indulgence, currently 
reciprocated among the sub-divisions of the Northern party. Drs. Durbin, Peck, and 
Elliott, in theRepIy to the Protest, say the action in Bishop Andrew's case, was no trial — 
was not judicial in any sense — was not intended or thought of as a trial. Dr. Bond 
and others, say this is all a mistake— an utter misconception of the facts. They assure 
tlie Church and the world, that it xoas a trial, and exhibits all the essential elements of 
judicial action. A third party make it a mere executive "regulation." The Protest, 
written before the light of these contradictions had been shed upon the South, assumes, 
that to charge with delinquency and institute enquiry, is a judicial process, inasmuch 
as there is the implication of jurisdiction, Jaw, responsibility, and judgment, and re- 
gards the procedure as extra-judicial, because the whole invoice of grievances, was un- 
known to existing law— designed to regulate the whole subject matter of complaint. 
The Protest was presented with the full conviction, that under semblance of conformity 
to the constitution and law, an unlawful use had been made of both, to accomplish 
what was not contemplated by either. The General Conference of 18*36 say, in their 
official address, in allusion to the subject in question, "every man should be presumed 
to be innocent, until proved guilty, before some competent tribunal." Of what was 
Bishop Andrew found guilty, and in view of what law? The only lavv which could 
possibly be invoked with any semblance of justice, was known to protect him, and yet 
party opinion triumphs over lavv and justice, and like the irresolute Pilate, they first 
declare him innocent, and then, arraying the act against their own decision, they pro- 
ceed to scourge him. In comparing the law and the conduct of Bishop Andrew, we can 
find no adequate cause for tlie action in his case. We believe the real cause lies deeper 
and dates farther back. Why was law declined, and opinion, and Northern and foreign 
popular feeling appealed to, against Bishop Andrew! Having a law on slavery, even 
the non-prohibition of the act charged as an offence, rendered it lawful, apart from the 
fact, that express provision of law covered the case. The Discipline expressly provides, 
that where circumstances remove a case from within the province of the general 
principle, no individual shall suffer from any application of the law. In Bishop An- 
drew's case, that which the law excepts in terms, is made the sum of his offence. 
What the law declines exacting, and actually dispenses with, is made the sum of duty. 
We would not arraign motive, and can readily conceive how passion may be excited 
into sentiment, and aversion roused into activity, leading to the most unhappy results, 
while the actors are unconscious of the real character of their own course of action, or 



the evils they inflict. It did seem to us, at the time, and subsequent events liave been 
but too vvell calculated to confirm the impression, that liostility to the South was the 
moral typo of the whole movement, and that it was intended to teach us that a Northern 
altar must hereafter sanctify the gifts of the Church. The majority could not consider 
the conduct of Bishop Andrew as morally wrong, for they not only allow, but expressly 
authorize it, in the case of his scriptural Peers — the Eldership, or College of Presbyters. 
They could not regard his conduct as officially wrong, for they publish to the world, that 
there is neither prohibition nor requirement, connected with the oflice, in the shape of 
law, and hence infer, that the kx nan scripta of Northern prejudice, on the subject of 
slavery, must be the standard of judgment, aud conslitute the tenure, by which Bishops 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church, are hereafter to hold ofSce. 

But further^: the abstract principles and favorite dogmas of abolitionism, in the Me- 
thodist Episcopal Church, had had their day of disturbing notoriety, and were re^^arded 
by the South, as nearly defunct, until quickened into activity and dramatized, by the 
anti-slavery party of the late General Conference. It was the conviction of the South, 
that this party, dissatisfied with the conservative principles upon which they had for- 
merly acted, found themselves, as a body, without principles upon which they could act 
as they wished, and it became necessary that they should adopt new ones. It is not 
assumed, that there was any formal coalition between the Abolition and anti-slavery 
parties ; it is believed that this was not the case. But there was, at the same time, a 
mingling of parties for specific action — to accomplish given purposes, in which the par- 
ties were deeply if not equally interested. The policy and movements of the old con- 
servative party, while in a state of preparation for action, during the early part of the 
Conference, seem to have performed the functions of a kind of Lazaretto, at which abo- 
litionism did brief quarantine, and was then accredited as ancient Methodism, at least 
for the time, and so far as the case of Bishop Andrew was concerned. There was at 
least a spasm of harmony, during which the parties were one in aim and action. Both 
united in declaring that an offence which violated no law of God or man, and was re- 
cognized by both as consistent with christian and ministerial character. Each was 
prompt in claiming for the General Conference absolute control over both the formation 
and the execution of law. They acted together in asserting the claim of jurisdiction 
pro salute anivicc, without license of law or sanction of precedent. They clung to- 
gether and fought for the sanie results, under every change of colour, until their pur- 
pose was accomplished. They united in requiring Bishop Andrew to do what the law 
of the Church did not exact, and the laws of the State in which he resided, expressly 
forbid — in other words, they agreed to punish the Bishop for doing what the law of the 
Church allowed, and for vol doing what the law of the State prohibited. We bespeak 
the patience and candor of the reader. The freedom, and it may be thought boldness of 
censure, in these brief preliminary statement:}, cannot be judged of fairly, except in con- 
nection with the facts and evidence, we submit, in support of their truth, and in vindi- 
cation of the course and policy of the South, in the premises of this unhappy contro- 
versy. 

Intending an examination of all the principal topics in controversy between the North 
and South of the Methodist Episcopal Church, no particular analysis, either of the Pro- 
test or the Reply, is deemed necessary, except as we proceed in order, to a review of the 
whole ground occupied by both. 

The first general topic claiming attention, is the compromise character of the general 
law of slaven/ in the Methodidist Episcopal Church ; its assumption by the South in 
their Protest, aod its denial by the North, in their Rejoinder. To prevent misapprehen- 



6 

sion, it may be well to state hero, and once for all, iliat tlie term compromise is used in 
the Protest, in its most ordinary popular acceptation, in connection with legislation, to 
denote a mutual agreement to adjust ditficulties, in tlie shape of a legal arrangement 

some general rule or law, upon the grounds of mutual concession and forbearance, by 

the parties legislating, acting as the authorized representatives of the more primary 
parties, immediately interested. Before proceeding, however, I must ask to be in- 
dulged, while I otfer some preliminary views and statements, with reference lo the gen- 
eral subject, and my connection with it, without which I cannot be properly understood, 
either by my friends or enemies. Involved in this controversy somewhat prominently, 
by the force of circumstances, rather than any voluntary agency of my own, I am anx- 
ious to place it in the power of both my friends and enemies, to judge me fairly, and 
beyond this. I have nothing to invoke or deprecate with regard to either. At the first 
session of the Ohio Conference, after the division of the old Pioneer Western Confer- 
ence, I saw and heard, for the first time, that extraordinary man. Bishop Asbury, who, 
in an elaborate address to the Conference, on the afl^airs of the Church, glanced at 
the then recent session of the first Delegated General Conference, May, 1812, and 
spoke of the advantages likely to result, and enlarging upon the various interests of the 
Church, East, West, North and South, he remarked, that in all these sections the Meth- 
odists were one — every where the same people ; and added, that at one time he and his 
venerable colleague. Dr. Coke, had greatly feared, that in this country, slavery in the 
South, and the opposition to it in the North, would divide the Church ; but he warmly 
congratulated the Conference, that the evil they had dreaded, had passed away ; that the 
North and South, in the General and Annual Conferences, had, by mutual concession and 
forbearance, settled down upon common ground, and had agreed to be governed by law 
— the Discipline of the Church, in all they said or did on this dangerous and exciting 
subject. " Do this," said he, in tones of commanding but affectionate authority, "and 
you will save the master and slave, the bond and the free, the North and the South.'' 
The impression I received from listening to this address, was strengthened and render- 
ed indelible by a private discussion, to which I listened, during the same Conference, in 
which some young preachers maintained, in opposition to Bishop Asbury, that slavery 
in every shape, and all slave holders, should be banished from the Church ; and the 
great and good Samuel Parker advocated the necessity of a compromise course, and de- 
fended the views of Bishop Asbury, in his address. Apart from my distinct recollec- 
tion of these facts, I kept a kind of journal record at the time, of nearly every tiling 
that interested me, and in view of both, I make this statement, as substantially correct. 
Before this I had vaguely regarded slavery, in all its possible forms, as a foul blot upon 
the Christian name, and the remarks of Bishop Asbury, and the arguments of Parker, 
gave me the first distinct impression — led me lo the first rational enlarged view of the 
subject of slavery, in relation to the Methodist Episcopal Church, I had ever entertained, 
and will remain with me to the close of life. Three years after, at the fourth session 
of the Ohio Conference, Sept. Ibl5, I heard Bishop Asbury preach the funeral sermon 
of Dr. Cuke, and in enlarging upon the Apostolic zeal and extensive usefulness of tho 
Doctor, as an " American Methodist Bishop," he alluded to the manner in which the 
Doctor's usefulness had been "curtailed in the South," in his own phrase, by his imprudent 
zeal and movements in reference to slavery. " We thought," said the Bishop, '• we 
could kill the monster at once, hut the laivs and the people were againsx. us, and we had to 
compromise the matter, or lose the South." I cannot pretend to give entire the precise 
language of the Bishop, but such was the substance — the plain import of what he said ; 
and connected as it was, with wliat I had heard him say before, I could not fiirget it, 



especially as my admiration of tiie man, amounted to almost idolatrous veneration. I 
was perhaps the more struck with the Bishop's remarks, as I had that year been 
preacher in charge of a circuit in Virginia, where the subject had necessarily engaged 
my attention. There are those living, who know that the recollection of such incidents 
would be likely to be indelible witii me, from the flict, that at this Conference, but for 
the stern interposition of Bishop Asbury, my unimportant career as a Methodist travel- 
ing preacher, would probably have terminated. Crushed by what I regarded (right or 
wrong) as tlie unfeeling scrutiny of the Conference, I had addressed a letter of withdraw- 
al to the Conference, through my friend Rev. David Young, upon the reading of which, 
Bishop Asbury said : "Give that poor boy to me, I'll take him and be responsible." 
Bishop Asbury thus became my friend and protector, at a time when I greatly needed 
both ; and let no one be surprised tiiatl treasured up and preserved, what others, differ- 
ently circumstanced, may have forgotten. After traveling nearly four years in the Ohio 
Conference, I was, in the autumn of 1816, transferred to the Tennessee Conference, of 
which I was a member until 1821. During this whole period, a fierce controversy was i 
raging in that Conference, on the subject of slavery and abolition, the Abolitionists 
having a decided majority. The course and practice of the majority, went to settle the 
principle, that no slave holder, whatever might be the law of the State, in the case, or | 
his claims in other respects, should be received into the traveling connexion, and no ' 
preacher, traveling or local, admitted to ordination, until he had first in fact emancipa- 
ted his slaves. The minority contended that such a course was inconsistent with, and 
in violation of, the rights long secured to slave holders, in States where emancipation 
was impracticable. The struggle was long and bitter, continuing from year to year, 
and at the Tennessee Conference in 1819, the minority, acting under the advice of Bish- 
ops McKendree and George, protested against the course of the majority, and appealed 
to the General Conference of 1820. Upon the presentation of the Protest in Confer- 
ence, Bishop McKendree presiding, admitted it to record, against the declared will of 
the majority, and took occasion to address the Conference at great length, on the course 
of the majority, and the subject of slavery in general ; and as the interference of the 
Conference with the subject, had excited no little distrust and jealousy in the public 
mind, Bishop Mtlvendree requested that he might be heard by some of the most influen- 
tial citizens of Nashville, in which the Conference sat; and at his request, I introduced 
into the Conference the Honorable Felix Grundy and Oliver B. Hays, Esq., who listen- 
ed to the address of Bishop McKendree with intense interest, and declared to the Con- 
ference, that according to the address, the law of the Church was not, as they had been 
led to suppose, in conflict with the laws of the State. 

In this address. Bishop McKendree glanced briefly, but clearly at the whole range of the 
legislation of the Church, on the subject of slavery, and took great pains to show that 
while the Church sought to remove the evil of slavery, from within its own limits, 
where it could be done consistently with the laws and welfare of society, it did not, in 
any instance, abridge the rights of ministers or people, where law and the convention- 
al understanding and interests of society pursuant to them, rendered emancipation im- 
practicable. He reviewed, in a summary way, the various and often conflicting regula- 
tions of the Church respecting slavery, from the early days of Asbury and Coke, down 
to that period, and showed that the apparent inconsistency, on the part of the Church, 
was owing to alternate party ascendency, as it regarded the North and the South. His 
whole address went to show, and he repeatedly affirmed it, that the question was one 
that could only be managed by concession of parties, and that the existing laws of the 
Church, were the result of such mutual concession, and that at the General Conference 



8 

of 130S, they had sulemnly agreed lo iek the subject alone, in General Conference, and 
allow the annual Conferences to regulate the matter within their own limits. He stated 
he had hoped that this act of compromise, with others, and the final action in 1816, 
would save the Church from any serious trouble, but he saw it would not, and declared 
his purpose to propose to the next General Conference, to deprive the annual Confer- 
ences of the power given them in ISOS, and to establish one uniform law to govern the 
whole Church. Accordingly, he and Bishop George, privately advised the minority of 
the Tennessee Conference, to memorialize the General Conference to that effect. Bishop 
George addressed the Conference, approving the views of Bishop McKendree, and assur- 
ing us, he should concur with him in reporting the unauthorized proceedings of the 
Tennessee Conference, and in asking tiie General Conference to repeal the law of 1803. 

The Memorial of the minority, praying the repeal of this law, as advised by the 
Bishops, together with their representations, led to a discussion in the General Confer- 
ence of 1820, which resulted in the repeal prayed for. In the final conflict between the 
majority and minority of the Tennessee Conference, on this subject, the venerable Phil- 
ip Bruce took an active part, and fully and most unequivocally sustained the views of 
the Bishops and the minority, and addressing the Conference, by request, as a living 
witness in the principal transactions alluded to, he was even more minute and e.\act 
than Bishop McKendree, in showing that the whole legislation of the Church had been 
in the spirit and form of compromise, and that if this compromise was departed from, 
JMelhodism must die in the South. The same view of the subject was avowed and ad- 
vocated bv the never-to-be-forgotten Valentine Cooke, who was present, and called up- 
on for his opinions and testimony. 

Barnabas McHsnry, of whom I once heard Bishop McKendree say, if he were allow- 
ed to choose his successor, as senior Bishop of the Methodist Episcopal Church, Mc- 
Henry would be the man, was a member of the Tennessee Conference, and assumed and 
argued not only the virtual compromise of the law of slavery, between the Northern 
and Southern portions of the Church, but the absolute necessity of this or some kindred 
adjustment, to prevent division and ruin. These men were all opposed to slavery, and 
had no connection with it, and yet they unyieldingly maintained the ground assumed 
in the Protest, on this subject. It is proper to add, that Thomas Logan Douglas was 
the only man in the minority of the Conference, who was in any way connected with 
slavery. The minority numbered about twenty members of the Conference, and being 
oppressed and trodden down in the struggle, referred to, they naturally turned to men of 
ao-e, wisdom and experience in the Church, for counsel and direction, and especially to 
ascertain the real character and purposes of the law of slavery, and more particularly 
the opinions and conventional understanding, in which it had originated; and being one 
of the minority, and frequently called upon to act as one of its organs, I was necessarily 
led to a somewhat extended, if not critical acquaintance, with the whole subject and 
controversy. I was in the habit, for years, of consulting, whenever I could have ac- 
cess to them, the venerable men who had grown up with American Methodism, and 
who were therefore well acquainted, not merely with the facts, but with the reasons of 
Ict^islation on this subject. From them I learned, wiiat I believe to be the true history of 
the creneral rule on slavery, which found its way into that summary code of morals, 
known as the " General Rules" of Methodism, without the sanction of a General Con- 
ference, being introduced by Bishop Asbury and his council, in 1783 or '9, and first 
published in the latter year, and was intended as a response of tlie Church to the pro- 
vision in the Constitution of the United States, then just adopted, for the abolition of 
th« slav« trade ; the council deeming it proper, that wliat the Constitution looked tor- 



ward to prospectively, should beat once fixed upon as peremptorily binding upon all mem. 
bers of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and hence the prohibition — " buying of men, 
women, or children, (usually stolen and plundered from Africa, and brought to 
this country for the purpose) with the intention to enslave them." The language of 
Coke and Asbury, in their notes on the Discipline, sustains this view of the subject. 
Speaking of this rule, they style it, "a small addition, which the circumstances of the 
States required," evidently alluding to the recent prospective prohibition of the slave 
trade in the Constitution of the United States. 

No part of this recital, which I introduce with great reluctance, but could not omit 
without subjecting my motives and conduct to misconstruction, is intended in any degree 
to reflect upon the character or piety of the majority of the Tennessee Conference. 
The most of the men who took part in that controversy, are now in their graves, and 
so far as I know, no cause of quarrel exists between any of the survivors. I will only 
add in this connection, that as McKendree, George, Bruce, and Cooke, had frequent 
interviews in council, with the minority, my recollections may have confounded, in 
some instances, what they stated on these occasions, with their statements before the 
Conference. That I quote their opinions correctly, I am entirely confident. Beside 
my general connection with the subject, during the hotly contested struggle in the Ten- 
nessee Conference, I was a member of the committee which drafted the Protest, and 
also of the committee which drafted the memorial to the General Conference, just allu- 
ded to, and hence it was the more necessary I should acquaint myself with all the sour- 
ces, and avail myself of all means of information in my power, while at the same time, 
I should be the more likely to recollect and preserve the information I had obtained. 
And accordingly, I have in my possession copies of the Protest and Memorial, numer- 
ous letters received during the contest and subsequently, bearing upon it, together with 
other papers and documents, enabling me to make these statements with the perfect 
knowledge that they are substantially correct, and entitled to the confidence of all con- 
cerned. In this way I imbibed my first and early notions of the compromise character 
of the law of the Church on slavery. I am not at all careful or tenacious about words 
or phrases. My object is to make it appear to the satisfaction of the candid and well 
informed, that for the last thirty years, I have been taught, and taught too by the ablest 
masters in our common Israel, that the whole legislation of the Church, on the subject 
of slavery, but especially from 1800 to 1816, originated in mutual concession and com- 
promise, between men representing the Church, North and South, and therefore, that 
the law of the Church is, ipso facto, a compromise, as assumed in the Protest of the Mi- 
nority at the late General Conference, the principles and the positions of which, it is 
the object of this publication to defend. If I am in error, I have become involved in it 
most unintentionally, and without any personal interest, by which a man of common 
sense could have been influenced, during any part of the thirty three years to which 
tliese statements refer, and all my convictions assure me, if I am in error, I have been 
misled by such men as Bishops Asbury, McKendree — and George, Philip Bruce, Robert 
Cloud, Barnabas McHenry, Valentine Cooke, Leroy Cole, John Littlejohn, William 
Burke, Samuel Parker, William AUgood, John McGee, Thomas L. Douglass, and many 
others, equally entitled to credit, with whom I have been in intimate intercourse, and 
whose opinions gave character to my own. That these men regarded the law of the 
Church on slavery, as something very different from a "simple decree" of the General 
Conference, and as the result of vexed and protracted deliberation, at different times, 
terminating finally, in a compromise of conflicting opinions, in the shape of a rule or 
law, is a matter about which I can never doubt, because in every instance I bad the in- 
2 



10 

formation directly from themselves, and could not have misunderstood them. By the 
part I took in advocacy of the conservative grounds of the Discipline, in relation to 
slavery, from 1816 to 1821. mixed up, occasionally, with other incidental matters, my 
position became extremely unpleasant, and at two different times, Bishop McKendree 
proposed to relieve me, by making me his travelling companion in his annual tour of 
the continent. This I declined ; but in 1821, requested him to transfer me to some 
other Conference, proposing to go wherever he chose to send me, and he accordingly 
transferred me to the Baltimore Conference, and stationed me in Pittsburg, assigning 
the state of things I have detailed, as the reason of my transfer. During the whole 
period of the General Conference of 1824, I was conGned by extreme illness, in Wash- 
ington City, and toward the close of the session, Bishop McKendree visited me, and in 
a long interview with him, he glanced at the difficulties in which I had been involved 
in the Tennessee Conference, adverted to the slavery question, expressed his conviction 
that the subject, as further compromised in 1810, and left upon the common ground of 
that arrangement, by depriving the annual Conferences of all legislative power over the 
subject in 1820, would secure the peace of the Church. In proof of this, he stated, 
that the subject had produced very little excitement at the General Conference then in 
session, and he trusted the question was conclusively settled. I have added this last 
item, because it is by several years of later date, and tended strongly to confirm all my 
previous views of the opinions entertained by Bishop McKendree, on this subject. I 
have also heard Bishop McKendree state, and have had the statement from others, that 
at the General Conference of 1608, or perhaps 1812, a measure was brought forward, 
on the subject of slavery, and would probably have carried, had he not declared to llie 
Conference, that in the event of its adoption, he could not attempt to administer the gov- 
ernment in the South ; when it was abandoned. It is a well known fact, also, and within 
the recollection of living witnesses, that at the General Conference of 1798, when a 
motion was made to exclude all persons from the Church in any way connected with 
slavery, McKendree, Tolleson, and others, resisted it with the most unyielding deter- 
mination, on the ground that the act would exclude Methodism from the South. In a let- 
ter before me, a venerable member of that Conference, and who goes vvith the North on 
the subject in controversy, says, "the motion was ably debated on both sides, all, I think, 
agreeing that slavery is a great evil. The ground taken by Wm. McKendree and James 
Tolleson, the strongest opposers of the motion, was that by passing it, we should shut 
up our access, not only to the slave holder, but also to the slave, so that we could do 
them no good, soul or body, for time or eternity. Here are two evils, (it was urged by 
McKendree and friends,) and we ought, (by way of compromise.) to choose the least. 
The motion was lost." But more of this in other places. I have introduced at some 
length, and at the hazard, perhaps, of incurring the charge of egotism, my own personal 
connection with this controversy, not as argument, but to show how, as a Methodist 
Preacher, every way unconnected witli slavery, I was led to imbibe the doctrines and 
opinions of the Protest on this subject, and I think it must be perceived by every one, 
that my present position is a very natural, if not necessary consequence of what has 
gone before. I repeat, however, that to place it in the power of others to do me justice, 
is the only thing, so far as I am personally concerned, about which I am at all solici- 
tous, and in order to this, I have, perhaps, already said enough, and it may be, more 
than was necessary. 

It has always been understood in the South, that in all tiie conflicts in the Church, 
respecting slavery, there has been a sullicient number in the General Conferences, ad- 
hering to Northern policy, to uarry any measure they chose, but that in a great many 



II 

instances at least, they have been restrained by appeal and remonstrance, from the 
South, and have compounded and compromised, as assumed in the Protest, and as we 
shall proceed further to prove. Before proceeding further, however, it may be proper 
to state, what the good sense of the reader could hardly fail to suggest, that in speaking 
of the North and South in this controversy, it is intended not to speak of all persons — 
the entire people North or South — but only so far as the North and South have spoken 
out and acted in the premises. In so far as any portion of the people, North or South, 
may be unrepresented by the avowal and action to which we allude, they are not inclu- 
ded in these designations ; and where it is meant to include them, the connection will 
sufficiently explain. It is necessary to add, too, that I shall use the term abolition, in 
the plain, obvious and general sense, in which I have always understood and used it, to 
denote any interference or meddling icith the question of slavery, contrary to the inten- 
Hon, and beyond the provisions of law, civil and ecclesiastical — that is, the law of the land 
and the law of the Church. All persons so acting, I regard as Abolitionists, and shall 
so call them. On the other hand, the principles and actions of those who seek the re- 
moval or regulation of slavery, in strict and respectful accordance with law, as above, 
I have always regarded and spoken of as conservative in character and tendency, and 
shall do so in this discussion. 

In an approach to additional sources of information — more stictly historical evidence 
— especially the official and accredited testimony of the Church, the reader need not be 
reminded, that the history of the controversy in question, has yet to be written. We 
have little else than scattered elements — isolated materials and fragmentary notices, 
scattered here and there throughout immense masses of authorship and publication. All 
is, to a great extent, without form and void, and a brief examination of the general sub- 
ject, is impossible. Facts and principles may be condensed, as was attempted in ihe 
Protest ; but proof is challenged, and must be furnished, or the South be found at fault, 
in the controversy. Our appeal is to the truth of history and the evidence of facts, and 
both must be met and set aside by a more convincing array of opposing proofs, before 
our cause is discredited. Any amount of criticism and disparaging remark, may be 
brought to bear upon particular parts and aspects of the subject, without in any way af- 
fecting the force of the argument attempted. Had it been practicable to discuss the 
subject fully and fairly within a more limited compass, it would have been greatly pref- 
erable, not only in the way of saving the cost of no little labor and research, but also in 
view of popular general impression. We found, however, that an extended induction 
of facts and particulars, was indispensable, and no very obvious classification of them 
practicable, without much more time than we have been able to devote to the sub- 
ject. Beside, the subject is a peculiar and intractable one, and an appeal to discur- 
sive methods of examination appeared unavoidable, for the plain reason that but little 
can be known of the real character of law, the true philosophy of legislation in any 
case, without some adequate knowledge of the practical reasons and circumstances, in 
which it had its birth ; and hence the course we have been compelled to adopt, and the 
impossibility of any very brief or condensed view of the subject. 

I have always been taught, that the compromise character of the law of the Method- 
ist Episcopal Church, was clearly inferable from tiie history of its legislation on the 
subject. It has always seemed to me impossible for any one, not under the influence of 
strong prepossession, to look at the ever recurring change of position, purpose and poli- 
cy on the part of the Church, respecting slavery and abolition — its various, and often 
conflicting rules and regulations, at different times — its frequent suspension, repeal or 
modification of such rules — the constant attempt to meet the exigency of circumstances 



12 

its unwillingness (o hazard the issue of carrying out its severer acts of legislation — 

its uniform refusal, for sixty years, to close the door of the Church against slave hold- 
ers, and yet irresolutely attempting all the time, to make emancipation a condition of 
membership afterward, when it was perhaps thought the terror of punishment, combined 
with other causes, might operate to secure submission. I repeat, I have always thought 
it impossible to look at the subject in these aspects, without perceiving that the Church, 
in all its legislation, has felt a resort to concession and compromise, indispensable to uni- 
ty and success, in connection with the North and the South. I am still more strongly 
than ever of the same opinion, and consider the debates and action of the late General 
Conference, and even the Manifesto of the Majority, in reply to the Protest, as addition- 
al proof of the assumption. If it be true, as distinctly affirmed by Drs. Durbin, Peck, 
and Elliott, that the North has been conceding to the South for fifty years — if it be fur- 
ther true, as distinctly admitted, that the South has conceded to the North, although 
not, if we choose to admit what they assume, to the same extent — yet as both parties 
have felt the necessity, and acted upon the principle of concession, reciprocally claimed, 
how does it happen, we have no compromise as the result of such concession, in the 
legislation that followed? legislation and its judicial construction being the only form 
in which the parties could concede? Can men or parties concede right and claim, in 
legislative or judicial intercourse, and meet upon common ground, not the choice of 
either party, except as a preferred evil, without acting upon the ground of compromise? 
If this be possible, by whom has it been shown? The parties, by which we mean pro 
and con, those who thought and felt differently, on the best mode of treatment and rem- 
edy, as it regards the evil of slavery, took into view the adverse grounds they occu- 
pied, and that the general interests might prevail over the lesser and conflicting ones, 
they agreed to meet and act in view of average right and justice, between the adverse 
claimants. The whole drift, both of the language and logic of the Protest, goes to 
show, that in calling the law of slavery a compromise, we reasoned from the concrete 
to the abstract, knowing as we did, if its authors could be believed, that it had its ori- 
gin in mutual concession and forbearance. As it originated in the necessity of trying 
emergent circumstances, its compromise character was taken for granted, inasmuch as 
the law itself became, of necessity, the abstraction and generalization of the conflicting 
facts and interests, difficulties and concessions, connected with its original enactment, 
in separate parts, at different times. Any tolerably accurate appreciation of the rela- 
tions of the parties, must furnish satisfactory proof to the most common discernment, 
that the existing law of the Church could have originated in no other way. The legis- 
lation on slavery, by consent of parties, took circumstances and consequences into the 
account, and whatever may have been its form, as each party yielded in some things, 
and refused to yield in others, and both finally met in the adoption of the same general 
rules, the legislation in fact, was a compromise. It is admitted that the language of 
the Protest varies from the common phraseology of the Church on the subject, and we 
were led to use it. because, in our judgment, the crisis which gave it birth, rendered it 
necessitry that the principles involved should be more clearly defined, and better under- 
derstood. Should it turn out that we have wronged the truth of history, let the proper 
correction be applied. It is confidently believed, however, that the evidence we submit, 
in support of the Protest, will satisfy the discerning and unprejudiced, that no novel 
principle, assumption or speculation, unknown to our fathers and tiie American Meth- 
odism of the last half century, can be found in it. The very first minute, rule or regu- 
lation, the first act of legislation on the subject of slavery, by the infant Conference of 
lay preachers, in 1780, is both in language and temper, a compromise. Great as the 



IS 

evil is charged to be, it concedes that even traveling preachers were slave holders, and 
merely requires a promise of emancipation ; and with regard to all other slave holders in 
the Church, the Conference simply advises them to free their slaves. If they did not in- 
tend compromise, in view of the civil rights — the interests and feelings of the South — 
why receive slave holders at all, either as members, or as local or traveling preachers? 
In the instance of what is declared to be crime, by every law of Heaven, man, and na- 
ture, why merely exact promises, and advise, instead of requiring emancipation before 
receiving them at all? If in the loose, extravagant language of the rule of 1780, slavery 
is contrary to the laws of God, man, and nature — is hurtful to society, contrary to the dic- 
tates of conscience and pure religion, and doing to others what we would not they should 
do to us, that is a criminal and ungodly practice, inhuman and unnatural withal, as most 
expressly affirmed, what must be thought of the piety and usefulness of preachers and 
people, thus living in open and declared violation of the laws of God. man, nature, society, 
and conscience, as well as the precepts of pure religion and social justice ? What must 
be thought of law makers and Church rulers, who thus denounce practices as grossly in- 
iquitous and immoral, while no actual abandonment of the evil is necessary, either to 
church membership or ministerial office'' The persons and the practice are both placed 
under the angry ban of the Church, and yet continued in connection with it, as if it was 
thought necessary to baptize the evil, in order that the means of its extirpation might 
be brought to bear the more effectually. And yet, after this unmitigated denunciationi 
when, three years later, the subject next comes up, local preachers only are named, and 
it is deemed best to try them another year, to see whether, after four years advising, 
the result will not be different, and if not, it is gravely stated it may (and of course 
may not, as it turned out) be necessary to suspend them. Why this hesitation and de- 
lay? Was it or not seen and felt, by the excellent men composing these early Conferences, 
that they had acted prematurely, and that they could not carry out the principles and 
measures they had avowed and adopted, without ruin to the objects and mission of 
]\Iethodism in the South ? Unless this was so, why is an evil so unmitigated, so ut- 
terly at war with the moral order of Heaven and earth — so inconsistent with any, the 
least degree of moral uprightness, borne witii for a moment? And especially \vhy are 
persons involved in it, allowed to enter the Church, and even the ministry, when curse 
and defilement are assumed as the inevitable consequence ! Without intended compro- 
mise, how can we reconcile the faith and practice of our fathers ? In 1784, at the reg- 
ular Conference, the local preachers in Virginia, holding slaves, are allowed another 
year to reflect upon the matter; that is, five years after the first warning! Does this 
delay betoken compromise or not? At the called Christmas Conference of the same 
year, we have a series of enactments, the tone of which is equally decided as to the mor- 
al wrong of slavery. These are expressly admitted to constitute a new term of mem- 
bership, unknown to the general rules of Mr. Wesley, and came in with the new organ- 
ization of the Church. Still, fearful of consequences, the law is suspended before it is 
published, and slave holders have another year for reflection, and in Virginia, where 
the Church was numerous and strong, they have two years more, extending the proba- 
tion in Virginia to seven years. If in this no compromise is seen, six months after we 
have a further and more formal suspension of all the rules on slavery, until the next 
Conference, when it is declared tiie rules shall be enforced. Tliis, however, was not 
done, and during twelve long years, the suspension continues, and the whole subject is 
allowed to sleep, and confessedly, because of the great evil done in the South by its agi- 
tation. In 1796 we have a new code or set of rules, but obviously of the same compro- 
mise character with former ones, as explained by the practice of our rulers. Slave 



14 

holders are still admitted to ministerial order and official station, upon security given 
that they will emancipate in future. The laws of the State, and the circumstances of 
individual cases, are to be consulted and deferred to by presiding elders and preachers 
in charge, in judging of the nature of the security required. And, as if doubtful 
whether this was not too stringent, upon the reinonstrances of McKendree and others, 
from the South, they compromised the wliole matter farther, by authorizing the yearly 
Conferences to make whatever regulations they judge proper, respecting the admission 
of slave holders to official stations in the Church. Masters are allowed to hold slaves 
for a term of years, to remunerate themselves. Preachers and people are called upon 
for information and opinions on the subject, to be sent up to the next Conference, that 
the preachers, instead of their hitherto imperfect knowledge, and conflicting and versa- 
tile opinions and purposes, may have full light upon the subject. Such are some of the 
difficulties and details of the still incipient, unsettled compromise of the Protest. In 
1800 there is still further modification and compromise. A traveling preacher is allow- 
ed to hold slaves, where emancipation is not practicable, in conformity with the laws of 
the State in which he lives ; and to get at the subject more directly, without coming in 
conflict with the civil authoritities, it is found necessary to interfere with the legisla- 
tion of the States in which slavery exists. The Annual Conferences are instructed to 
memorialize the Southern Legislatures, and urge them to pass ''general emancipation" 
laws. Committees were to be appointed, too, to aid the traveling preachers in " this 
blessed work." An application of this kind, to the Legislature of Georgia, gave birth, 
in 1800, to the celebrated law of that State, prohibiting emancipation in any form, ex- 
cept by Legislative enactment. The application was deemed obtrusive and dangerous, 
and the Church, in this way, has prevented the emancipation of thousands of slaves in 
Georgia, as well as other Southern States, by provoking State legislation, which render- 
ed it entirely impracticable. While this business of petitioning Legislatures, and re- 
monstrating with them, was going on in 1800, it was suddenly found necessary to com- 
promise this matter too, or give up the South, and the plan of petitioning was abandon- 
ed accordingly, and atonement was offered for the indiscretion, in the shape of apologies 
and explanations in beljalf of the Church, especially after a Southern Grand Jury had, 
upon presentment for a violation of the laws of the State, found a true bill against ona 
of the Bishops of the Church, Dr. Coke, on account of tlie active part he had taken, in 
the movement now referred to. 

In 1804, the compromise character of the law of the Church respecting slavery, be- 
gan to assume a more distinctive form. Li view of the firm position and vehement re- 
presentations of Southern Preachers, RIcKendrep, Lee, Tolleson, and others, that the 
existing rules would no longer be borne with, private members are allowed to sell 
slaves into perpetual slavery as the dictate of "mercy and humanity," without Church 
censure, and all slaveholders of the laity, in North Carolina, Georgia, South Carolina, 
and Tennessee, arc exempted from the operation of even the new rule, entirely. The 
rules of 179G and 1800, relating to interference with legislation, are repealed, and the 
Conference goes so far as to haznrd, for the first time, in its rules and regulations, the 
distasteful admonition of the New Testament, that slaves should obey their masters and 
consult their interests. At the next General Conference, however, the admonition was 
expunged, as oflx-nsive or uncalled for, and nothing of the kind has appeared in our le- 
gislation, or marred our statute books since. Li 1808, the compromise is still more fully 
developed. Every thing relating to slave holding among private members is expunged 
from the Discipline, and each annual Conference is fully authorized to make its own 
regulations, relative to buying and soiling slaves. That this was done upon demand 



15 

and remonstrance from the South, will not be denied, and how tar it goes to prove tlie 
compromise of the Protest, let men of sense determine. In 1812, the comi)romise, to 
which the good men of 1780-3-4-5, were driven, by the force of circumstances, in the 
very face of their own rules, and despite their cherished opinions and policy, receives 
a still more conclusive form, in the shape of a direct concession m terms, upon the ur- 
gent representation of Southern men, that the laws of the States are so diverse on the 
subject of slavery, that no general rule can apply, and hence a renewal of the grant of 
right to the annual Conferences, to control the whole subject as tliey saw proper. It 
was then agreed by the North and South, that the legislation of the Church must con- 
form to that of the States, and emancipation not be required by the Church, where it was 
opposed by law and public opinion. This fair and manly adjustment of a grave Church 
difficulty, I heard Bishop Asbury explain and commend, only four months after it oc- 
curred, as the great bond of union beticeen the North and the South. 

In 1816, we have the last of a series of kindred measures — the final act of legisla- 
tion, alluded to in the Protest, as completing the compromise between the North and 
the South. "No slave holder, shall be eligible to any official station in our Church here- 
after, where the laws of the Church in which he lives, admit of emancipation, and per- 
mit the liberated slave to enjoy freedom." Ergo, "any slave holder, (so far as slave- 
ry alone is concerned,) shall be eligible to any official station in our Church, hereafter, 
(and of course whether as Deacon, Elder, or Bishop,) where the laws of the Stale, in 
which he lives, do not admit of emancipation, and the liberated slave is not permitted 
to enjoy freedom." This is a plain grant of law, and as such it satisiied the South. 
The South has always been satisfied with it. Nothing more has ever been asked by 
the South. It is the open infraction — the gross violation of this law by the North, of 
which we complain, and to which the South will not submit. Take now the law of 
1800, the two regulating the entire traveling connexion and local ministry — "When 
any traveling Preacher becomes an owner of a slave or slaves, by any means, he shall 
forfeit his ministerial character in our Church, unless he execute, if it be practicable, a 
legal emancipation of such slaves, conformably to the laws of the State, in which ho 
lives." Hence, "no traveling Preacher, becoming an owner of slaves, by any of the 
tenures recognized by law, in slave holding States, will be subjected to a forfeiture of 
his ministerial rights, if legal emancipation be impracticable, in conformity with the 
law of the State, in which he lives." With this, the South is equally satisfied, and by 
it we are willing to abide. We only complain of its violation by the North. And so 
of the general rule, as a prohibition,— "The buying or selling of men, women, or chil- 
dren, with an intention to enslave them." If then, a man shall not buy or sell man, 
woman, or child, with intention to deprive them of liberty, or reduce them to a sitate of 
slavery, he cannot violate the general rule. And with this too the South are perfectly 
satisfied. These rules fairly interpreted according to their most obvious meaning, as 
by the General Conference of 1840— interpreted as they would be in any intelligent 
Court of Equity, afford all the protection we need. The construction, however, placed 
upon them, the two former especially, by the last General Conference, virtually repeals 
them, and it is against such nullification we protest. Believing as we have shown, and 
shall further show, that the legislation of the Church on slavery, especially since 1800, 
originated in concession and compromise, call it by what name you will, the South have 
always relied on it as a solemn compact, based upon the good faith of the parties, and re- 
gard the violation of it, by the late General Conference, as inconsistent with fidelity to 
the obligations of a grave public engagement. 



16 

In l!ri2n, the only action of the General Conference respecting slavery was to take 
from the Annual Conferences the authority to make their own regulations on the sub- 
ject ; and this action was had in view of the Memorial already alluded to, from a mi- 
nority of the Tennessee Conference and the representations of Bishops McKendree and 
George; in connection with it. In 1824 the general law of slavery was left untouched. 
So also in '28, '32, '36 '40 and '44, except, that by construction, the last General Con- 
ference changed it entirely, and so undermined all the securities of the South, and re- 
duced us to the necessity of resistance, as an act of self-preservation. As the general 
rule, the course of legislation on this subject has always been a conservative, middle 
one, between Northern and Southern convictions and interests. The necessity of union 
was always strongly felt, and this interest prevailed, but not until either section or par- 
ty, North and South, had yielded highly cherished preferences, on the ground of conces- 
sion and forbearance. And not only is it susceptible of the clearest historical and logi- 
cal proof, that the law of slavery has always been a virtual compromise, but the whole 
administration based upon existing law, from time to time, has been such in fact, be- 
cause accommodated to the ever-varying circumstances, under which it has been ap- 
plied. If not, why has the law, in so many instances, as we have seen, been permit- 
ted to remain a dead letter — a mere brutum fulmen, when it came in conflict with cir- 
cumstances and developments, rendering its exercise inconsistent with the more general 
reasons and causes, which gave it birthl We are reminded, however, that all this is de- 
nied both by the writers and signers of the Reply, (it was the joint production of three 
different writers, only one of whom signed it,) and it may not be amiss to vary the evi- 
dence on this subject. The Protest assumes a legal compromise, in the absence of 
its forms, and the Reply quietly assures all concerned, that it is an absurd fiction, un- 
worthy of credit. This denial, without a word of proof, is offered as quite sufficient to 
overthrow the Protest entirely. The summary endorsement of the quintuple alliance 
of Northern editors, was of course superfluous. If it should be made appear, however, 
that legislative compromise is by no means uncommon, but in fact of frequent occur- 
rence, and notoriously one of the most ordinary forms of party stipulation, it will at 
least tend to prepare the way for a fairer estimate of the mass of evidence we have yet 
to present, on the subject in dispute. The well known political balance of mutual 
rights and interests, as secured in the Constitution of the United States, between the 
North and the Soutli, has been recognized as a compromise, since the foundation of the 
government, without any direct evidence, however, of any thing resembling compro- 
mise, in the Constitution itself. A conventional understanding has, during this whole 
term, existed between the North and South, to the effect, that in the admission of new 
States into the confederacy, the number of free and slave States shall be equal, or as 
nearly so as practicable ; and this has been invariably appealed to, as a compromise not 
to be disregarded by either party, without the imputation of implied dishonor, although 
no express contract exists to this effect. The evidence is found in the Constitutional 
history of the country. When the Congress of the United States, in 1820, decided up- 
on a proposition from the Hon. H. Clay, that no slave State should be admitted into the 
Union, North of latitude 36 30, and the North agreed to admit Missouri, and settle the 
slavery question as then agitated, upon the basis of such a prospective arrangement, it 
was then, and has ever since been, regarded as a compromise, reasonably and fairly 
bindin"- the South against any attempts to extend slavery beyond this line, and the 
North against meddling with the question, by opposing tiie admission of slave States 
South of it, unless they should exceed in number the free States North. However in- 
formal, this conventional arrangement, it has always been understood and recognized as 



17 

a compromise, which saved the Union of the States, both by the people of this country, 
and throughout the civilized world. 

Mr. Madison informs us, that a measure introduced into Congress in 178"3, was car- 
ried through and became a law "by compromise," and yet, in the reported proceed- 
ings of Congress, the evidence is not found upon the Journal. Mr. Madison also in- 
forms us, that in settling the question in the Congress of 1783, in what proportion 
slaves should come in as a basis of representation, the question could only be settled 
by compromise; and yet the compromise does not appear upon the face of tlie record. 
In the Convention for the adoption of the Constitution of the United States in 1787, 
there was a special conventional compromise, as Madison, Hamilton, and others, assure 
lis, between the North and the South, respecting commerce and slavery — the Northern 
confederates needing what it was the interest of the South to withhold, but the North 
insisting, the South yielded, in view of a similar concession to tliem in favor of slave- 
ry. The evidence of the fact, however, does not appear in the Constitution, but else- 
where ; although it is as certain, as it is likely to become important in the history of 
the country. The West India Emancipation bill is known and recognized in the de- 
bates of Parliament, and British history, as a compromise; and yet as a law it wears 
the aspect of a simple decree, and is only known as a compromise, because it was an 
adjustment of a difficult question between the West India Planters and the Imperial 
Legislature, upon the ground of mutual concession. Even Magna Charta is shown by 
Hallam, Godwin and others, to have been a compromise, and as such has given char- 
acter to British legislation ever since, although the form of this celebrated instrument 
does not indicate the fact. The existing government of France is recognized by philo- 
sophical statesmen, as the great compromise between the absolutism of one part of the 
nation, and the republicanism of the other; and it is strictly true that the government 
of Louis Phillii)pe is a compromise arrangement, although it may not appear upon the 
Statute book, or in the Cabinet archives. During a period of near a century before the 
American Revolution, a conventional understanding existed between the colonies of 
this country and the English government, that while the latter had the right to regu- 
late external taxation, duties, and imposts, connected with the colonies, the undoubted 
right belonged to the former, to regulate all internal taxation ; and a well defined com- 
promise to this effect, without any formal stipulation, had become so incorporated with 
the convictions and feelings of the American people, that its violation by the British 
ministry, instantly decided the colonies in favor of revolt. The question of slavery, in 
British India, has long been treated by the Parliament and Press of England, as a com- 
promise arrangement — one party insisting on its abolition, and the other resisting it, 
as subversive of British sovereignty in that quarter of the globe. The policy of the gov- 
ernment has always been regarded as a compromise, while mere legislation has given 
the subject no such aspect. The adjustment of the great Tariff question, between the 
North and the South, in 1832, is known as the Compromise act of Congress on the sub- 
ject, and yet, upon its face, it is a simple decree of national legislation. Speaking of 
English compromise grants, the Crown, the Nobility, and the Commons being parties, 
Hale says : "The concessionof these Charters was in Parliamentary form." 

Dr. Bangs and Bishop Emory, both style the suspended resolutions of 1820, usually 
known as the Presiding Elder question, a compromise; yet no evidence of the fact ap- 
pears upon the face of the law, and it is evident they reasoned in the case, as we have 
in the Protest, the law was a compromise because it originated, as did the law of slave- 
ry, in the mutual concession of antagonist parties. The proposition of the Bishops to 
th« late General Conference, to postpone th« whole question in the case of Bishop An- 



18 

drew until 1848, was regarded and has since been represented by both parties as a com- 
promise measure, witliout being so shaped or styled by its authors. Dr. Emory, and 
subsequently the Bishops, in an official address, and more recently Dr. Elliott, repre- 
sent the conventional agreement of the traveling ministry, to labor where the Episco- 
pacy may appoint, and the people to submit without any claim of right to select their 
pastors, as a compromise in the Constitution of the Church, and which cannot be viola- 
ted without high moral blame, but certainly without any formal stipulations to this 
effect. 

By analogy then, the circumstances of conventional understanding and legislative 
adjustment, being the same or similar, is it not with the most perfect and entire pro- 
priety, the Protest speaks of the compromise law of the Church, on the subject of slave- 
ry? Nor in doing so, was there any thing constrained or far-fetched. It is a conclu- 
sion so natural and necessary, in view of the premises, as furnished in the history of 
the Church, that the only wonder is, that men claiming enlarged information could be 
prevailed upon to risk its denial. It is urgently assumed in the Reply, that the North 
has always been conceding to the South, as it regards slavery. The question arises, 
have they done so, except as it was just and right? Have they sacrificed principle and 
duty, by concession? If not, the just claims of the South to the concessions made, are 
admitted by their own acts in the case, and the result is compromise. We have seen, 
and shall have occasion further to see, that in order to the very existence of the law of 
slavery in the Methodist Episcopal Church, compromise. was an indispensable condi- 
tion. Without it the law could not have been. In a conflict of necessities, the parties 
legislated upon the principle of mutual accommodation. Neither party had what they 
desired, each gave up what they were anxious not to part with, but agreed to unite, 
upon what they could obtain, in the adjustment, without disunion, and this social guar- 
anty, in the shape of public law, has been looked upon, in the South at least, as a com- 
promise, because concession was known to be its basis, and because, without such a re- 
ciprocal modification of different and opposing elements, interests, and wishes, no law 
could have bound the North and South together. The Bishops in their General Confer- 
ence address, 1840, say, "it is impossible to frame a rule on slavery proper for our peo- 
ple in all the States alike," and certainly it is not less impossible to do it in the case of 
the ministry. The only reasons involving conscience or principle, apply alike in either 
case. And accordingly the law of the Church has always been different in its applica- 
tion to different States, and we are thus presented .vith the necessity, the reasons, and 
the fact, of compromise, as assumed in the Protest. The sum.of the whole legislation 
on the subject, has been essentially conventional in character and bearing, and although 
without any formal ratification by the parties as such, has been in fact a compromise 
arrangement. Dr. Bangs says, "the several modifications of the rules on slavery, from 
one General Conference to another, until the present time, all partake of a similar 
character," (that of compromise,) "intending lo record the o_ppos?7zo?i of the Church to the 
system, and to adopt such measures to mitigate its evils, and finally, if possible, to do 
it away, as wisdom and prudence should suggest." Speaking of the legislation of 
1784, the Dr. says, "even this gradual process couU not be carried forward, without 
producing k greater evil than it was intended to remove," and adds, that the law "was 
suspended," (the Church finding it necessary to compromise,) "in favor of those more 
wise and prudent measures, which the Cliurch has ever since used, and is ready to use, 
for the extirpation of slavery." Even the zeal of Dr. Coke cooled in contact with the 
reasons and necessity for compromise to which we allude. "On his second visit to 
Aaerica. Dr. Coke was convinced he bad acted indiscrettly, and he cons(?nted (when 



19 

pressed by the South,) to let the question ot emancipation alone." "He proceeded ia 
such an intolerant spirit of philanthropy, that he soon provoked violent opposition." 
"His mistaken zeal and the unfavorable influence his opinions and course had, on the 
subject of slavery in the South, are matters of history." — Dreiu's Life of Coke, Souths 
ey^s Wesley, Coke's Journal. The General Conference in their address to the British 
Conference in 1840, say, "under the administration of Dr. Coke, emancipation was 
urged alike in all the States, without reference to laic or public opinion — the attempt 
proved almost ruinous, and was soon abandoned by the Dr. himself. While iherefore, 
the Church has encouraged emancipation, in those States where the laws permit it, and 
allow the freedman to enjoy freedom, we have refrained from conscience sake, from all 
intermeuiing with the subject, in those States, where the laws make it criminal.''^ Would 
truth permit the last Generel Conference to make such a statementi They add, "the 
question of the evil of slavery, is a very different matter, from a principle or rule of 
Church discipline, to be executed contrary to and in defiance of the laws of the land." 
There is perhaps no single word in the English language, so fully expressive of the 
meaning of the General Conference in this statement, as the single word compromise, 
if we take into the account, with the course of action indicated, the reasons which ob- 
viously led to it. The General Conference says, of both the ministers and members of 
the Church, "with their rights as citizens of these United States, the Church disclaims 
all interference." Apply this to the Southern ministry and membership, connected with 
slavery, where emancipation is impracticable, and what does it expressly authorize thera 
to assume, on coming into the Church, or any grade of the ministry] By wliat means 
could it be made clearer, that the General Conference pledges, that the legislation and 
practical government of the Church, should be such, as not to conflict with the rights 
of citizenship in any of the States. How v;as this pledge treated by the late General 
Conference, especially in the case of Bishop Andrew? The General Conference of 
1836 declared, "such is the diversity of habits, thoughts, manners, customs, and do- 
mestic relations, among the people of this vast Republic, and the diversity of the insti- 
tutions of this vast confederacy, that it is not to be supposed an easy task, to suit all 
the incidental circumstances of our economy to the views and feelings of the vast mass 
of minds interested." Is it not intended, that the facts brought into view, shall desid- 
erate the necessity of compromise, in order to prove its reasonableness, as it actually ex- 
isted in the law of the Church? Again they say, "we pray that brethren, will at least 
give us the credit of having acted in good failh, not having regarded private ends or 
party interest, but the best good of the whole family of American Methodists." The 
allusion here to parties, "parly interests" and "good faith," may tempt some to think, that 
both the language and sentiments of the General Conference had been plagiarised into 
the Protest. They add, "we assure you, we have adopted no new principle or rule of 
discipline, respecting slavery, since the time of the apostolic Asbury, neither do we 
mean to adopt any. There are States in which slavery exists so universally, and is so 
closely interwoven with the civil institutions, that both do the laws disallow of eman- 
cipation, and the great body of the people, (the source of laws with us,) hold it to be trea- 
sonable, to set forth any thing by word or deed, tending that way^ As it would be 
•wrong &nA unscriptural io en^iCi a rule of discipline contrary to the Constitution and 
laws of the State, on this subject, so also would it not be equitable or scriptural, to 
confound the positions of our ministers and people, so different are they in difl^erent 
States, with respect to the moral question which slavery involves." The good sense of 
these passages, will command respect every where, but when we come to apply them in 
the case of Bishop Andrew, we are Gompelled to see, that the requirement of the late 



20 

General Conference was both disallowed and held to be treasonable both by the laws 
and people of Georgia — was contrary alike to its "Constitution and laws," if the last 
mav explain the first, and therefore, by authority of the General Conference of 1836, 
not only "wrong," and "inequitable," but "unscriptural," albeit, it is in bad taste and 
worse odour to invoke scripture to this effect. They say further, "we have been less 
or more agitated with the perplexing question of slavery, interwoven as it is, in many 
of the State Constitutions, and left to their disposal by the civil compact, which binds 
us together as a nation, and thus put beyond the power of the legislation of the General 
Government, as well as the control of ecclesiastical bodies, could you have perceived all 
its delicate relations to the Church, to the several States, and the government of the 
United States, you would have sympathized with us more tenderly." Contrast with 
this language, the rash and reckless proceedings, (so we are compelled to regard them,) of 
the General Conference of 1844, and who can help being struck with their irreconcila- 
ble dissimilarity. Here is a most "perplexing question," "interwoven" with some fif- 
teen "Slate Constitutions" — at the ^'disposal" of these States alone, and this too by the 
stipulations of the national compact — "beyond the power of the General Government, 
or the control of ecclesiastical bodies," — "delicately" connected with "<Ae Church" — 
the "several States" and the government of the United States. In 1S44, however, all 
is changed. The Majority place "theatres and grog-shops," side by side with slavery, 
and declare them equally allied to law and government. And their organs have since 
improved upon the discovery, by the addition of "drunkenness, profaneness, and the 
card table" — all equally condemned by morality, yet equally protected by law! The 
General Conference of 1836, by solemn resolution declared, "we wholly disclaim, any 
ri"'ht, n-ish, or intention, to interfere, in the civil and political relation, between master 
and slave, as it exists in the slave holding States in this Union." Here the relation 
between master and slave is '^civil and political," and the Conference disavows anv 
"right" to "intefere." Georgia was a slaveholding State — Bishop Andrew a citizen 
and master, and ihe late General Conference declared, that the ^'civil and political" re- 
lation, existing between him and his slaves, must be dissolved, or he cease to be a 
Bishop of the Methodist Episcopal Church, except in a state of suspension — that is, 
hunf up lor further punishment. Take the public faith of the Church, as pledged to 
James 0. Andrew, in the resolution above, and then turn to the redemption of that 
pledge by the late General Conference, and tell us which is laboring under the greater 
"impediment," and which ought to "desist," until it is removed? In the address of tiie 
Bishops in 1836, they say, "from a calm and dispasyionate survey of the whole ground, 
we have come to the solemn conviction, that the only safe scriptural and prudent way 
for us, both as ministers and people to take, is wholly to abstain from this agitating sub- 
jett." What deference did the Majority of the late General Conference extend to this 
advicel In all the General Conference olympiads of the Church, has any one been 
half as much distinguished by agitation, as was the close of the last?- 

The Bishops state in behalf of the Annual Conferences generally — " they have no dis- 
position to criminate their brethren in tlie South, who are unavoidably connected with 
slavery, or to separate from them on that account." Bishop Andrew, by the showing 
of his prosecutors, was " unavoidably connected with slavery," entirely apart from his 
marriage, and the assurance here given by the Bishops, and endorsed by the General 
Conference, was utterly disregarded in his case. The Bishops add of the Conferences, 
»« they clearly perceived that ihe success of abolition measures would result in the di- 
vision of the Church." Did or did not the anti-slavery party so act at the late General 
Conference, as to give buccess to '< abolition measures," and thus incur the responsibil- 



21 

ity of a " division of the Ciuirch?" In the same connection, the Bishops strongly in- 
sist on "no imposition of new terms of communion— no violation of covenant engage- 
ments, on the part of the Church." This is too much in character vvith the doctrines of 
the Protest, not to be condemned with it. The Bishops obviously regarded the Annual 
Conferences as original contracting parties, creating the Delegated General Conference 
with limited rights and powers, and the law of slavery as one of congruityand comity, 
to which they had mutually consented, in General Conference action, for the good of the 
whole body— hence the law of slavery a term of communion— and " covenant engage- 
ments" which may be broken by the General Conference. Does the abused compro- 
mise of the Protest assume more than this] The Bishops remark further : " Rules 
have been made, from time to time, regulating the sale, and purchase, and holding of 
slaves, which, upon experience of the great difficulty of administering them, and the un- 
happy consequences, both to masters and servants, have been as often changed and repeal- 
ed. These important facts, which form prominent features of our past history, as a 
Church, may very properly prepare us for that course of action in future, which may be 
best calculated to preserve the peace and unity of the whole body— promote the happi- 
ness of the slave population, and advance, generally, in the slave holding community of 
our own country, the humane and hallowing influence of our religion. We cannot withhold 
from you, at this eventful period, the solemn conviction of our minds, that no new ec- 
clesiastical legislation on the subject of slavery, at this time, will have a tendency to 
accomplish these most desirable objects." How far this admonition, to adhere to ex- 
isting " covenant engagements"— the compromise of the Protest, was adhered to in the 
premises of this controversy— and to what extent " new legislation" was had by forced 
construction of existing law,' we shall have occasion to see by viewing the subject in a 
variety of additional aspects. The Bishops vehemently urge the mi'liistry, including 
themselves, to employ their " whole influence to bring both slave and master to a sa- 
ving knowledge of the grace of God, and to a practical observance of the relative duties 
of 'master and slave,' so clearly prescribed in the writings of the inspired Apostles."— 
(The duties growing out of the relations of the theatre, grog shop, card table and race 
ground, omitted.) «'Can we," they add, "at this eventf-il crisis, render a better ser- 
vice to our country, than by laying aside alt interference with relations authorized and 
established by the civil laws, and applying ourselves wholly and faithfully to what 
specially appertains to our high and holy calling— to teach and enforce the moral obli- 
gations of the Gospel, in application to all the duties growing out of the difterent rela- 
tions of society. If past history affords us any correct rules of judgment, there is much 
cause to fear, that the influence of our sacred office, if employed in°interfering with the 
relation itself, and consequently, with the civil institutions of the country, vvill rather 
tend to prevent than to accomplish these desirable ends." How this advice, sanction- 
ed as it had been by the whole Church, was dishonored by the late General Conference, 
no one need be told. 

The British Conference, in the last charge to their West India Missionaries, before 
the abolition of slavery there, explicitly declare : " Your only business is to promote 
the moral and religious improvement of the slaves to whom you have access, without, 
in the least degree, in public or private, interfering with their civil condition." And in 
their address to the Methodist Episcopal Church in 1839, on the subject of slavery, 
they say : "You are placed in circumstances of painful trial and perplexity. We en- 
ter with brotherly sympathy into the peculiar situation you are called to occupy." First 
disclaiming any right to meddle with the civil condition of the slave, even in the West 
Indies, where slavery existed without the guaranties with which it is surrounded in this 



92 

country ; and secondly, admitting that our position, in this respect, is a peculiarly try- 
in"' one, and therefore calls for treatment suitable to the difficulty and issues involved. 
Ao'ain, the British Wesleyans instruct their Missionaries — " on all persons, in a state 
of slavery, you are diligently and explicitly to enforce the same exhortations which the 
Apnstle of our Lord administered to the slaves of ancient nations." There is certainly a 
startling contrast between these views, and the kindred advice of our Bishops, as it re- 
gards the apostolic practice of inculcating upon all slaves, the Scripture duty of obedi- 
ence and fidelity, and the affectation of pious horror manifested at the recent General 
Conference, lest the Bible should be invoked on this subject for any purpose not involv- 
ing the denunciation of slavery. The difference is, the first has, and the second lacks 
the warrant of the Bible. At the Western Conference in Tennessee, in 1808, Bishop As- 
bury says: " We made a regulation on slavery ; it was, that no member of society, or 
preacher, should sell or buy a slave, unjustly, inhumanly, or covetously." The conces- 
sion here by Bishop Asbury and the Conference, is, that in view of the existing 
system of slavery, (though regarded as an evil,) ministers, as well as members of the 
Churcii, may nevertheless both buy and sell slaves, without the charge of injustice, in- 
humanity, or covetousness — that is, without any charge of moral wrong. At the Vir- 
ginia Conference, in 1809, Bishop Asbury says: " Wo are defrauded of great numbers 
by the pains that are taken to keep the blacks from us." Wliy] He adds, "their mas- 
ters are afraid o? our principles'''' — that is, abolition principles. He goes on, "would not 
an amelioration in the treatment and condition of slaves, have produced more good to 
the poor Africans, than any attempt at their emancipation? What is the personal lib- 
erty of the African, which he may abuse, to the salvation of his soul?" Well may we 
pause over these concessions of the experienced Asbury. He avows that abolition had 
" defrauded'* the Church of multitudes, (not only thousands, but hundreds of thousands 
of slaves,) and he admits that the salvation of these unfortunate slaves had been jeop- 
ardized by attempts at their emancipation, which had proved as abortive, as they were 
offensive and injurious. At the Southern Conference, held at Green Hills, North Caro- 
lina, in 1785, Dr. Coke warmly, and in reproachful language, objected to the character 
of Rev. Jesse Lee, because he was not in favor of coercing the immediate unconditional 
emancipation of all slaves owned by Methodists. This resulted in a serious personal 
conflict, producing great division of feeling, and a high state of excitement in the Con- 
ference. The Doctor found himself in the minority, and finally apologised for his con- 
duct. The difticulty, however, was renewed a few days after, at a Conference in Vir- 
ginia, where the people became greatly excited against the Conference, on account 
of their interference in matters of civil right. The author of the Life of Lee, alluding 
to this conflict with Dr. Coke, remarks that Lee "anticipated what in reality was 
brought to pass, a few years after, that the spirit of the (Southern) people would bo 
roused, by pressing the subject too closely, and that it would be the means of closing 
the door effectually against future emancipation." Indeed, nothing is more evident, 
than that parties, as they now exist, have existed from the beginning, in the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, on this subject ; and that the zeal and indiscretion of the abolition 
party, during the whole term, have tended directly to check and arrest the progress of 
emancipation, so that no unimportant portion of Southern slavery, is directly chargea- 
ble, during a period of sixty years, to such interference by a portion of the Church. 
History and experience, a thousand experiments and as many failures, have demonstra- 
ted to the good sense of all concerned, that to meddle and denounce, can never miti- 
gate the evils of slavery, in this country. And if slavery and IMetiiodism ought not to 
co-exist, in the same fellowship, why, in the name of any or all the virtues, has the con- 



23 

nection been allowed at all, whether by Wesley himself, in the early American and 
West India societies, or by the Methodist Episcopal Church? Mr. Wesley made no at- 
tempt to exclude it— had no rule— gave no directions on the subject. He condemned 
the system, but as a practical question of civil origin and regulation, refused to meddle 
with it. The Methodist Episcopal Church has always waged war upon the evil, and 
yet would not part with it ; that is to say, has always proclaimed slavery an evil, and 
yet admitted slave holders to all the rights and privileges of lay and ministerial stand- 
ing. A standing antagonism has been maintained, but always in a state of wedlock. 
How will the historian make appear, that it was fair and just, honest and honorable, 
to admit slave holders, as they have notoriously, since 1770, both to membership and 
office, with the intention of making emancipation the condition of the one and the other, 
subsequently] If the first be admitted but the latter denied, then what becomes of ihe 
Church's "opposition" to slavery! In what sense has slavery •' been treated as an 
evil?*' Unless we take the ground that it was the purpose of the Church to oppose 
slavery, as one of the many forms of civil oppression, but not to treat the slave holder as 
involved in moral blame, in view of the mere relation itself, how can' we defend the char- 
acter of the Church? Look at the ground we have just gone over. Why this temporiz- 
ing hesitation— this complication of terms and conditions— these declarations of hostili- 
ty, followed by truce, suspension and repeal? Look at the subject as we may, the idea 
and the necessity of compromise, obtrude at every step. The real difficulty, which ev- 
er and anon has presented itself, in the history of legislation, has always arisen out of 
a conflict of opposing elements and interests. The conflict proves the existence of par- 
ties, and the adjustment of the difficulty, by legal enactment ..f the parties in common 
council, proved the only and yet real compromise, for which we contend. Lee, in his 
history of American Methodism, speaking of the legislation of 1734, observes : "These 
rules were offensive to most of our Southern friends, and were so much opposed by 
many of our private members, local preachers, and some of the traveling preachers, 
that the execution of them was suspended." That is, the legislation of a majority was 
suspended upon the Protest of a Southern minority. The parties were as distinctly 
marked sixty years ago as now. Lee says of the Conference first legislating on the 
subject of slavery in 1780 : " None of the prenchers South of Baltimo^re were present 
at the Conference." It was a Northern movement entirely— a one-sided measure— the 
South would not submit to it, and the " Rules" soon went to the grave of the Capulets. 
The action in 1780, should be carefully kept in view, as the deed of the North, distin- 
guished from the South, although it has been dexterously palmed upon the whole body 
of primitive Methodist preachers. Lee is explicit: "On the 24th day of April, the 
eighth Conference met in Baltimore, where the Northern preachers ora/j/ attended." The 
Nonh had the preponderance of strength, and ruled, as now, the minority of the South. 
Speaking of the Northern Conference and the Southern Conference contra-distinguished, 
Lee says the Northern Conference "was allowed greater privileges than that in the 
South, especially in making rules and forming regulations for the societies. Accord- 
ingly, when any thing was agreed to in the Virginia Conference, (South) and after- 
wards disapproved of in the Baltimore Conference, (North) it was dropped. But if any 
rule was fixed and determined on at the Baltimore Conference, the preachers in the 
South were under the necessity of abiding by it." The North having the majority, and 
controlling the South. In 1803 the Southern conferences had 165 preachers, and 56,- 
000 members; while the Northern Conferences had a less numerous membership, with 
218 preachers— an excess of more than 50; and a siniilar disproportion has always ex- 
isted, gWxug Church control to the North. It is true, ia early times the North and 



24 

South would have been about equal in numbers and strength, had the Baltimore Confer- 
ence acted with the South, where geographically and politically she properly belongs. 
That Conference, however, has always cherished affinities for the North, and continues 
to do so, and this fact has secured to the North the power of the Church for 65 years or 
more. Contrary, therefore, to the round assertion of the Reply, the preponderance of 
strength has always been in the North. Upon this misstatement of fact, and the conse- 
quent inconclusive reasoning of the Respondents, it is not necessary to enlarge. Nu- 
merous facts support our general position. In raising a fund, the year before our 
Church organization, that is in 1793, for the support of preachers' families, the assessment 
was "North Circuits £200, South Circuits £60;" showing the great disproportion in 
strength and resources. At the General Conference of 1804, the Baltimore and Phila- 
delphia Conferences alone, furnished 67 members, nearly two thirds of the whole num- 
ber. Had not the Baltimore Conference represented Pennsylvania rather than Mary- 
land, as she always has in this respect, the North and South would have been equally 
divided, with three Bishops (Englishmen) at their head. As it was, the North was de- 
cidedly in the ascendant. Indeed, up to the General Conference of 1812, the Baltimore 
and Philadelphia Conferences furnished more than half the members of all the General 
Conferences. I have often heard it stated by those who were present, that at the Christmas 
Conference of 1784, there was but a small number of preachers present, and scarcely any 
from the South, until toward the close, when nearly all the business had been despatch- 
ed. This statement i-s sustained by Lee's history, and especially by Bishop Asbury, 
who says : " Friday 24, (December,) rode to Baltimore, where we met a few preach- 
ers; it was agreed to form ourselves into an Episcopal Church, with Superintendents, 
Elders and Deacons; ichen the Conference u-as sealed. Dr. Coke and myself were unan- 
imously elected to the Superintendency of the Church. We were ingreat haste, and did 
much business in a little timey In all this, Northern ascendancy is distinctly visible, as 
the power of control has been in fact with the Northern Conferences, and the South 
strictly a minority. 

Bishop Asbury states, that soon after its publication, he learned that the address in 
1800, of the General Conference, calling on the Southern Legislatures to emancipate 
the slaves of the South, had, in South Carolina, "been the occasion of producing a law, 
which prohibited ministers attempting to instruct any number of blacks with the 
doors shut, and authorizing a peace officer to break open the door in such case?, and 
disperse or whip the offenders. Nothing could so effectually alarm, and arm the citi- 
zens of South Carolina, against the Methodists, as the address of the General Confer- 
ence. They did indeed, (before,) give their slaves liberty to hear and join our Church, 
but now it appears the poor Africans will no longer have that indulgence." Again he 
says, "I lament tiiat I have no access to the poor (slaves,) our way is strangely closed up, 
at present, in consequence of the address.''^ Drew, speaking of Dr. Coke and his 
associates, remarks, "on account of their attacks on slavery, they were in danger of 
being altogether hindered from prosecuting their ministry, and hence were compelled to 
change their course," that is, driven to compromise. He says, "if Dr. Coke had contin- 
ued his direct attack upon the slave trade, (slavery is meant,) he must have abandoned 
the United States." These and kindred facts, o.'>rly decided the Church in favor of a 
compromise course. Wiien, at the General Conference of 1808. the Bishops were au- 
thorized to ordain colored persons, iree or slaves, to the ofliceof Deacon, it was deemed 
unadvisable to publish the fact, nor was it published uulil nine years after. Lee says, 
"most of the Preachers were opposed to its being made public." Why this deference 
to Southern opinion and feeling, unless the Church had rssolved on a course of corapro* 



25 

mise treatment! Dr. Bangs says, "they found it necessary to relax in their measures 
ao-ainst slave holders, without, however, attempting to justify the system itself." Lee 
says of these early measures : " It was going too far, and calculated to irritate the 
minds of our people, and not to convince them." He adds : " Long experience has 
taught us, that the various rules that have been made on this subject, have not been at- 
tended with that success which was expected. "We are well assured they never were 
of any particular service to our societies." He informs us : " Dr. Coke met with much 
opposition in the South, owing to his imprudent manner of preaching against slavery. 
No doubt the Doctor, at the time, thought he was doing right, but afterward, when he 
printed his Journal in England, he acknowledged he was wrong in preaching publicly 
against slavery in Virginia, where the practice was tolerated by law." The General 
Conference of 1796, apparently in doubt about what had been done, calls upon the whole 
Church, to give, in any form they might prefer, tlieir maturest thoughts on slavery; and 
yet Coke and Asbury, in preparing and publishing, by request of this Conference, their 
notes on the Discipline, say not one word in explanation of the section on slavery. The 
creneral rule, respecting which there was no diversity of opinion, they explain, but pass 
over the vexed question, which tjien, as now, was giving the Church so much trouble — 
that is, how we are to attempt correction, without increasing the evil? Was not this 
very silence a concession to the magnitude of the difficulty 1 The probability that the 
general rule was inserted by order of the Bishop's council, is strengthened by the fact 
that the slavery question was allovved to slumber — was not agitated at all, from 1785 to 
1796. In the year 17S9, the date of the rule, there were eleven Conferences, all quite 
small, as we learn from Lee, Bangs, and others. No one of them could claim any thing 
like conventional authority, and this fact, connected with the preceding one, renders the 
supposition above almost certain ; especially when connected with what we have before 
stated, and the silence of Conference history on the subject. 

Dr. Durbin says : "The Church has gradually made concessions to the necessities of 
the slave holding States— our fathers wisely made them, on the ground of necessity — 
the Methodist Church could not have existed at all in the South, without them." An 
analysis of the Doctor's concession, shows that the majority of the North conceded, up- 
on the just demand of the South, and that the South and North, in asJdng and making 
the concession, sought the common unity and good of the whole, and the Doctor thus 
gives us, in part, the true compromise of the Protest. Dr. Bangs assumes that the 
Methodist traveling ministry " pledge themselves to each other, not to violate those 
conventional obligations, under which they i)ave reciprocally bound themselves, as ar- 
ticles of faith, and rules of moral, religious and ministerial duty. Against these they 
are not at liberty to speak, preach, or write. Without the redemption of this pledge, 
there can be no peace or union." How far, and with what force this applies to our 
compromise argument, and our reasoning on the subject of conventional pledges, in the 
shape of legislation, will be seen at once, without remark from us. On the subject of 
slavery the Dr. says, "at almost every General Conference, some enactment has been 
made for the purpose of regulating slavery— of modifying or mitigating its character, 
with a view ultimately, if practicable, to do it away. It is manifest, that the making 
rules for the regulation of a practice, is in some sense to pronounce, that the practice 
is not, in itself, considered independently of all concurring circumstances, a moral evil 
in the sight of God. To legislate for a thing is to sanction it, though the manner of 
holding the thing may be considered either unlawful or inexpedient." This is the true 
compromise doctrine of the Church. The legislation of the Church has aimed at the 
regulation of the practice in question. This implies not merely toleration, but as Dr. 
4 



26 

Bangs says, some degree of "sanction." The Church has never legislated, in view of 
regulating Drunkenness, Profaneness, Gannbling, Theatres, and Grog-sliops. Every as- 
pect in which the subject comes up, proves the folly of any attempt to place slavery in 
the same category with these. The wliole history of Methodism, disowns the classifi- 
cation as absurd, and in the language of the General Conference, "unscriptural." 

On the general view of the subject we have taken, hear the venerable Bishop Hedding, 
whose reasoning has never been influenced by a Southern sun or Southern sympathies. 
He says, "the Church has permitted her members to hold slaves, where the laws of the 
land are such that they will not allow of emancipation, without subjecting the emanci- 
pated person to be again enslaved. The right to hold a slave, is founded on the rule 
'all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.' That 
there are many such cases among oiir brethren of the Southern States, I firmly believe. 
If I did not believe it, I could not do the duties the Church requires me to perform, 
when I attend the Southern Conferences. If I had not believed it in 1824, I could not 
have accepted the cliarge committed to me, when I was made one of the Superintendents 
of the whole Church, including slaves and masters. They believe that to emancipate 
their slaves, would be breaking the rule, 'do as you would be done by.' We cannot 
convince them by censuring them. Other means must be used if ever they are convin- 
ced. But that they are wrong in principle, cannot be proved, unless you can produce a 
precept of the Divine law equal to this, 'thus saith the Lord, thou slialt not own a slave.' 
But this precept is not in the Bible. Will you say slavery is condemned in the parts 
which compose it. This is true of the slave trade, of the system, and of all the injus- 
tice and cruelty inflicted on slaves, but it is not true in circumstances, where the best 
possible thing a man can do for his slaves, is to hold, protect, feed, and govern them. 
Will you say, 'undo every burden and let the oppressed go free;' but the people I have 
described are 7tot oppressed by their owners. If their present owners should set them 
free, they vvould be oppressed by others. They are now held to protect them from op- 
pression, and to own them is the only way to protect them. The Church has never 
said there could be no circumstances, in which a man could own slaves, and yet be in- 
nocent—nay, she has said the contrary." Since the organization of the Church in 1784, 
he represents her as "teaching those who could put away their slaves, on our Lord's 
rule, to do so, and also teaching those who could not thus release them, to conduct to- 
wards them as the Saviour directed." He suys "the address of the General Conference 
on slavery in 1800, was the occasion of a vast amount of injury both to them and the 
work." Speaking of the entire history of the Methodist Societies from their first es- 
tablishment to the orgari:;ation of the Church in 1734, the Bishop remarks, "Mr. Wes- 
ley and his preachers did not, at that time, believe it was a sin to hold slaves, where 
the laws were such as to prevent their continuing free after being manumitted. The 
language they employ clearly shows that it was their opinion that their people might 
be innocent in holding slaves, where tlie laws did not permit emancipation on christian 
principles. Mr. Wesley never said one word, that I can find, against a christian man's 
holding his slave in circumstances wliere ho could not put him away without injuring 
him. And the fact of his allowing some of his preachers and members to hold slaves 
in this country, for several years before our Church was organized, is sufficient evi- 
dence to my mind, that he saw that notliing better could bo done for the slaves, circum- 
stanced as those owners were, than to hold, feed, protect, and govern them. While this 
state of things continued Mr. Wesley ordained a Bishop and two Eiders for this coun- 
try, sending tliem over to organize his preachers and societies into an Episcopal Church, 
at the same time appointing Mr. Aabury joint superintendent with Dr. Coke, wJien he 



27 

must have known, thai many, both of his preachers and members in this country, held 
slaves." Again, "I have been severely condetnned, for expressing an unwillingness, to 
put a resolution to vote, in an Annual Conference, tending to censure our brethren in 
the South, for doing the same thing which Mr. Wesley allowed their fathers to do, 
when in connection with him, and when, also, he possessed the full power to prevent 
their donig so, or to expel them," Methodist Societies were formed in the West In- 
dies about the time they were in the United States, and Bishop H. remarlcs, "tiiey were 
under Mr. Wesley's superintendence, and from the best information I have been able to 
obtain, slave owners were admitted into those Societies. Mr. Wesley believed St. 
Paul permitted Philemon to be a member of the Churcli at Colosse, ichile he held Onesi- 
mus a slave. That Dr. A. Clarke, Mr. Benson, Dr. Coke, and Mr. Watson also believed 
that the Apostles permiited slave owners in peculiar Circumstances, to be members of the 
Church of Christ, is a fact too plainly declared in their writings, to admit of a doubt. 
These authors must have believed, that the Apostles knew, that the christians of their 
day were under such laws or circumstances, that the only thing such of them as held 
slaves could possibly do for them, according to our Lord's rule, was to hold, protect, 
feed, and govern them. They all believed that in some circumstances, men might own 
slaves and yet be christians. Though the Methodist Episcopal Church always permit- 
ted slave owners to remain in her communion, where they could not put away their 
slaves without violating the Saviour's rule, she labored hard and long, by various rules 
and resolutions, and other efforts, all within the great principles above laid down, to 
prepare the way for, and finally to accomplish a universal emancipation, especially in 
the Church. But she found, the more she exerted herself on this subject, the more hin- 
drances were thrown in her way, by legal enactments, popular excitements, and by per- 
secution. She found that, by trying to release the bodies of the slaves, she was hindered 
from using the means to save their souls, and that instead of removing their burdens, 
she was made the occasion of increasing them. The Church found herself driven to 
this alternative, either to cease using direct means to accomplish universal emancipa- 
tion, or abandon the largest portion of the Southern country." That is, the Church 
was driven to compromise, as the only possible mode of doing any thing to accomplish 
the object it had in view. Bishop H. says, "she determined to do all in her power, to 
save both slave and master. By these" (compromise,) "measures, the Church has held 
n, powerful influence over thousands of both colors— she has prevented a vast amount of 
injuries, which otherwise," (without such compromise,) "would Iiave been inflicted on the 
poor slaves. The civil government of that country, (the South.) is not in the hands of 
the Methodists, and further, if they were so disposed, to attempt to control it on this 
subject, would only hinder their great work, and bring heavier afflictions on "God's 
suff'ering poor." Let our Lord's rule be enforced, till the rulers and the great body of 
the people, of both colors, feel its influence, and then will the great Jubilee come, and 
it is my opinion, it will not come before, unless it be brought about by luar, blood, and 
revolution. You cannot fail of perceiving, that I am on the ancient Methodist ground, 
in relation to this subject— the ground trodden by Wesley, Coke, Clarke, Benson, Wat- 
son, Asbury, Whatcoat, G-arrettson, and many other wise and holy men, who now rest 
in Heaven." In review of the whole, the Bishop says of the Church, "she has chang- 
ed her measures," (intending compromise,) "from time to time, as the changes of circum- 
stances seemed to require, but never her principles." This is enough— we want no more. 
This extract of manly and luminous statement and reasoning, from Bishop Hedding, 
is a true and living picture of "Methodism and slavery," and well worthy the attention 
of the whole Church; nor is there any thu:g in it, variant from the mass of opinion and 



23 

evidence, we have submitted from the standard writers, the Bishops, and the General Con- 
ferences of the Church. It is emphatically the doctrine of the Church, the creed of 
Methodism respecting slavery. It was upon the compromise principles of the Bishop's 
argument, that Dr. Coke became the owner of slaves, by actual and deliberate pur- 
chase, as superintendent, under Wesley, of the West India missions. It was too, in 
precise accordance with this general view of the subject, that the General Conference 
of 1840 said, '-as emancipation, under such circumstances, (that is, in States wliere it 
is not practicable, so as to secure the enjoyment of liberty to the freed slave,) is not a 
requirement of Discipline, it cannot be made a condition of eligibility to office." None 
need be told, that contrary to this official assurance, the last General Conference did make 
emancipation, under the very circumstances described, a necessary condition of such 
eligibility. Again, the Conference says, '-an appeal to the policy and practice of the 
Church, for fifty years past, will show incontestibly, that whatever may have been the 
convictions of the Church, with regard to this great evil, the nature and tendency of 
the system of slavery, it has never insisted upon emancipation, in contravention of 
civil authority, and it therefore appears to be a well settled and long established prin- 
ciple, in the polity of the Church, that no ecclesiastical disabilities are intended to ensue, 
either to the ministers or members of the Church, in those States where the civil au- 
thority /ori/rfs emancipation." In relation to this grave decision of the General Con- 
ference, who can help seeing that the General Conference of 1844. directly contradict- 
ed, contravened and laid it aside, while ecclesiastical disability, under the precise cir- 
cumstances excepted, was officially decreed. Thus proving, as charged by the Protest, 
that the good faith of the General Conference of May last, is placed in a very question- 
able point of view, in the cases of both Harding and Bishop Andrew. The General 
Conference of 1840 declares further, "that in the Discipline, we have two distinct 
classes of legislative provision, in relation to slavery, the one applying to owners of 
slaves, where emancipation is j)racticable, consistently with the safety and interest of 
masters and slaves, and the other, where it is impracticable, without endangering such 
safety and these interests, on the part of both. In the latter case 720 disability attaches 
on the ground of slavery, because the disability attaching in other cases, is here remov- 
ed by special provision of law." Contrast this declaration with the action of the late 
General Conference, and that action will be found, a direct violation of an express 
guaranty by the highest authority of the Church. The same General Conference con- 
tinues, "may not the principles and causes, giving birth to great moral and politi- 
cal systems or institutions, be regarded as evil, even essentially evil, in every primary 
aspect of the subject, without the implication of moral obliquity, on tiie part of those 
involuntarily connected with su^h systems and institutions, and providentially involved 
in their operation and consequences? May not a system of this kin3, be jealously re- 
garded, as in itself more or less inconsistent with natural right and moral rectitude, 
without the imputation of guilt, and derelict motive, in the instance of those, who 
without any choice or purpose of their own, are necessarily subjected to its influence 
and swayl" And if so, in the case of slavery in the United States, what but a com- 
promise course can be pursued by the Church, without a direct invasion of civil and 
religious rigiits, growing out of long established relations, consecrated by the sancti- 
ties of conventional adjustment in the great national compact] 

About the mere term compromise, I am not disposed to contend — in fact care nothing 
about it. It was used in the Protest as typing the truth of history, and so used wo 
yield nothing assumed in the Protest. The use of the term may not have been familiar 
in tiie North. But that it has been in familiar use, among well informed Methodist 



29 

preachers and laymen in the South, for a long term of years, I know to be the fact, and 
certainly did not know, when the Protest was written, that this was not the case in the 
North. I had heard it used, as I have shown, for more than thirty years, by fluhers 
end leaders of the Church; and not dreaming that either the term, or the fact it was 
used to type, would be questioned in any quarter, it was used without consultation with 
auy one. To what purpose, and with what claim to historical correctness, the question 
has been mooted by the Reply, and in one or more of the Northern papers of the 
Church, let those concerned determine at their leisure. A Northern man who was in 
the;General Conferences of 1796, 1800, 1804, and 1S08, says, in a letter before me, "when 
we met in General Conference, May 1808, and the report came from the South, what 
great injury had been done to the progress of religion among the slaves and the free, 
the Norlli and Soulh mutually agreed to compromise on that subject, and every thing 
relating to the question of slavery, (as to private members,) was stricken from the Dis- 
cipline, and each Annual Conference authorized to form its own rules and regulations 
on the subject of slavery," (in relation to the preachers.) "Why the compromise of 
1808, was ever violated, or by what influence the right of each Annual Conference was 
taken away, I am not able to say. The course pursued from 1812 to 1844, comes within 
your own knowledge." 

Another member of all the General Conferences from 1793 to 1»08, says, in a letter 
with reference to the legislation of 1804, and an attempt to adjust the difficulties of the 
Church on the Slavery question, "we got the compromise act passed:" and, again, 
"the compromise act passed at that time, I think was sufficient to satisfy every one up- 
on the subject, North and South." Another member of every General Conference from 
1796 to 1312, and who sides with the North in this controversy, remarks, in a letter re- 
ceived from him, "as to the conservative rules, I have no recollection when they were 
not; for what else could wo do? We had no right to make rules in opposition to the laws. 
As to its being middle ground, on which the North and South met, by way of compro- 
mise, I always thought it ground on which we met of necessity, not choice." Still 
they met there, and the fact of compromise is admitted. Another says, "surely it is 
manifest that the whole course of our legislation on Slavery has been a compromise. 
The constant effort, indeed, from the beginning, has been to establish and enforce the 
Old England and New England doctrine and practice of abolition ; but it was ever found 
to be impracticable, and while abandoned in practice, it was still contrived to keep on 
record the testimony of that creed." No comment is necessary to show the value of 
such proofs, as establishing the main position of the Protest on this topic. These men 
speak of different compromise acts, and the Protest assumes these diflTerent act^s often 
changed and modified from 1800, but especially 1804 to 1816, as constituting, in sum, 
the compromise law of the Church on Slavery. The reasons of the legislation, to which 
these men allude, are distinctly recognized by the General Conference of 1840. "It 
must be expected that great variety of opinions and diversity of conviction and feeling 
will be found to exist in relation to slavery, and most urgeotly call for the exercise of 
mutual forbearance and reciprocal good will on the part of all concerned." With opin- 
ions so variant, and conviction and feeling so diverse, how can men live and act togeth- 
er in peace and unity, unless upon the ground of compromise? 

Before dismissing the topic of compromise, we have other important views to submit 
on the subject. We maintain, that the moral character of slavery in the United States 
connects, essentially, with its civil and political aspects and relations, and that apart 
from the latter, the former cannot be justly conceived of. Every where in the Bible, 
and it is brought to view directly or allusively in hundreds of instances, slavery is re- 



30 

garded as a civil regulation, and all ecclesiastical interference should treat it as such. 
In tiie United States, slavery is mixed up with organic State relations, and involves ori- 
ginal jural rights. These relations and rights are ordained and declared by the Con- 
stitution creating the Government of the United States, to be both Federal and Nation- 
al, pertaining in part to the States confederating, and partly to the Nation, as compos- 
ed of the contracting parties. The rights arising out of the relations in question, as 
it respects Slavery, are, by constitutional arrangement, under the protection of the fed- 
eral power and supreme law of the Nation, and any citizen, or association of citizens, 
invading these, in any form, or so acting as to reduce their force or value, is, incontes- 
tibly, guilty of a civil, and we maintain by consequence, amoral trespass. By the com- 
pact of the constitution, slavery is made an integral part of the basis of Federal and 
National representation, and this as mucli by tlie act of the North as the South. Against 
their wishes and remonstrances, especially Virginia and Georgia, it was introduced in- 
to the Colonies under the high sanction of British I;aw. It is strictly and essentially 
of jural origin in the United States, and based in the government of the country upon 
the legislation of National Sovereignty. It is an accredited principle — a well known 
condition of the national couipact, without which it is equally well known no Union of 
the States, North and South, would or could have taken place. Slavery is only provin- 
cial in view of geographical locality ; in all its more important aspects it is Federal and 
National in its relations and bearings. Viewing the North and South, as each a collec- 
tion of States, they have long existed distinct historical parties on the subject of slave- 
ry — parties by constitutional and legislative arrangement — parties by compacts of law, 
and different and opposite judicial determinations proceeding upon them : each legislating 
about the negro, slave and free, not only in diverse, but antagonist directions— opposed 
more or less in interest, feeling, policy and purpose; and is it supposed that the Metho- 
dist Episcopal Church could diffuse her influence, and marshal her 500,000 ministers and 
members on either side of the line without the existence, if not formal organization, 
of parties? The conflicts in every General Conference since 1792, prove the existence 
of such parties in the Church; and their separate principles have been developed and 
modified, from time to time, by various forms of repeated practical application, until 
they have expanded, North and South, into something like distinct systems, involving 
belief and feeling, strong and tenacious, and deeply interwoven with the practical life 
and social existence of the people. It has been a result as proper as it was natural and 
necessary, that the Church, in each of these great national sections, has not been ar- 
rayed against the policy of the State, but more or less conformed to it. In the Metho- 
dist Church, the parties in question have always been distinguislied by other character- 
istics than those already mentioned. The Northern division of the C.'uirch has been, to 
a great extent, a mcvement party, while the Southern has been stationary and conserva- 
tive. That the South has been most impulsive and excitable, is admitted. They have 
an interest at stake, not felt in the North. But that the South has ever attempted agi- 
tation, or engaged in discussion or controversy on the subject of slavery, except in 
self-defence, or when assailed from some quarter, uill hardly be assumed by any one. 
In the history of attempts at legislative change, it will be fotmd that nearly every pro- 
position for new and further interference has come from the North, while the South has 
generally simply resisted. The North has proceeded from one extreme and extrava- 
gance to another, in the denunciation of slavery as a wrong, an evil ; the South admit- 
ting and feeling it to be an evil, entailed upon them by the ancestral governments of 
the country, and asking for a remedy that would not be a greater evil. Bleanwile, 
Southern Methodism has done, even for the frsedum of the negro, a thousand fold more 



\l 



an Northern, beside what has been done for the earthly con,rort and final happiness of 
he slave, as such. The Church, Hke the State, has always presented dual antagonis- 
tic forces-different primitive types of action, North and South, on the subject of Slave- 
ry, and until lately, a third force or type distinct from each, but partaking- more or ess 
of t e character of both, has come in as a bond of mediation and intercourse bet^veen 
th two, an hold.n. both in check, has given vigour and balance to the social or^an" 
zatum. But this third conservative power having- coalesced with the more ext^emo 
Northern party, not as abolitionists, it may be, but acting with them as a common 
force or party against the South, the equilibrium is destroyed, and the necessity of sep^ 
araionhas been unequivocally avowed by both parties in General Conference assem- 
bled. I ,s admitted as a general rule, as it regards State relations, that the x\orth has 
ostensibly acted upon the principle and policy of concession toward the South respect- 
ing slavery ; but this was originally for a bonus consideration-was matter of Federal 
contract, without which the South would not have confederated at all. Did the North 
concede to the South? So did the South to the North, which found its indemnity in Sou h- 
ern concession m relation to navigation and commerce, and the provisional n^bt of di- 
rec taxation, in view of the National revenue. If it be said this latter rightlias rare- 
ly een asserted, stil it does not affect the argument, fl.r the North has' had gr ,y 
n 0^ than its equivalent m other respects, especially i„ ,be preferred advantages^of t e 
tr ff arrangements o the government and country, ever since the adoption of the en! 
itution, so t at the North has fully realized its own price for the concessions p re - 

Tr ™liir" '" '-^^ " '''-' '- - - ^'- -' — - ^- very 
When therefore it is recollected that every fraction of concession we have had from 

h Wh, IS in redemption of a conventional pledge, the primarv conditions of wl i" 
hav been realized to t e letter, by the North, the obligations of the South mav app a 
the ess oppressive as the North refused all concession that did not tend, directly or ind 
rectly to promote Northern interest. In view of this compromise arran.emen tte 
North and South are mutually bound to compliance with the stipulations specif ad 
unless e North pursue a course in relation to slavery, tending to damage So tler'n in 

res , he South is certainly bound, in honor and good faith, to do nothmg in anvway 
calculated to reduce the value of what was offered, as an equivalent for Northern con- 
cession in relation to Southern slavery. And as this matter is vitally connected wh 

^;::: s:;^:::::;' ;:^:;;" '--' -'— ^^ -- ^^ --- - ---^^ 

The abolition of slavery in Pennsylvania took place in 17S0, and other portions of 
e x^orth were strongly inclined, from various reasons, to a similar course T e ab 
ohtion movements ot England, about this time, in connection with the exciteme t and 
movement in Pennsylvania, and further North, operated as motives-as i u 1 t" 
with the English Methodist Preachers, recently come to this country, to ag aTt e 
question in the infant societies they had raised, and of course controlled ; and ceo 
ing y, in the first year of Pennsylvania abolition, we have the Jlrst .-ule m Zot 
am ng the Methodists in Europe or America, religious zeal being quickened by the po! 
htica excitement and agitation of the times. A very dissimilar state of things exist- 
ing at the time, in the South, from that in Pennsylvania and the North generally tl 
movement was resisted there, alike by Church and State, and hence tlfeTrlfi;,! f 
parties m both, which have continued ever since formation of 

rafcorntion 'nsrih "' '" ^-^^''"^-» '" — ks, that -"at the time of the Fede- 
ral Convention. 1.87, the experience of the States South of Pennsylvania, was such as 



32 



,0 produce distrust of their Northern brethren, as to the safety ofthor property in 
s"a es" Rawle on the Constitution, referring to the same period, observes '.was 
no eaVy task to reconcile tl>e local interests and discordant prepossessions of the differ- 
ent sections of the United States, but the business was acconiplished by acts of c^ 
Tion and mutual condescension." Mr. Madison says, "the Convention found difiicul- 
ie ot to be described. Mutual deference and concession were absolute y necessary 
H^d thev been inflexibly tenacious of their individual opinions, they -uM never lia^^ 
concurred ; it was difficult, extremely difficult, to agree to any general .y tern. Wi h 
oui (CO cession as to slave property,) the Southern States never woul ave en red 
int^ t Union of America." Defending the compromise of the Cons itution Gove - 
nor H ndolph says, "the Southern States conceived their property (in slaves) o be se- 
cu e by this arr n .ement." Patrick Henry, arguing the necessity ol a const.tutiona 
Jarantv o hind the North, states "a decided majority of the States-of Cong.^ss-is 
Nor h--th laves are South." Chief Justice Tighlman, of Pennsylvania, in a decision 
ff tie S preme Court of that State, says, "whatever may be our private opinions on U.e 
sJit of slavery, it is well known that our Southern brethren would not have con.ent- 
become parties to the Constitution, unless their property in slaves l-d - secur- 
ed." Chancellor Kent, speaking of this constitutional arrangement observes it u^s 
tit result of neccssitv, and grew out of the fact of the existence of slavery in a por- 
tr f c u ry. The evil has been of too long standing, and is too extensive 
and o cep root'ed to be speedily eradicated, or even to be discussed u.thout grea 
Lament rand discretion." The Hon. H. Clay stated, in debate in the Senate of the 
U uTd S tes, ..he Constitution of the United States never co.ld have been formed up- 
on the principle of investing the General Government with authority o ^^^^^ 
stitution of slavery at pleasure. It never can be continued for a single day, if the ex 
Ice of such power be assumed or usurped." Speaking of the general subject of 
!averv as sanctioned bv the Federal Constitution, the American Quarterly Revie^v 
says, "'the slave holding States (alone) have the right, the power, and the capacity to 

'^TL'whoirciin'ent of political and judicial opinion, in the entire history of the gov- 
ernment treats the subject as originally adjusted, and only susceptible of being man- 
led by compromise. The Hon. D. Webster asks, "if we begin to d sturb ike la.nce 
oTLL, (on the subject of slavery,) where shall we stopl" Justice Shaw, o Massa- 
chusetts «ays, "the Constitution of the United States partakes both of the nature of a 
treatv and of the form of a government. Before the adoption of the Constitution, the 
States were, to a certain extent, sovereign and independent, and were m a condition to 
settle the terms on which they would form a more perfect union. The constitution of 
the United States regards the States, to a certain extent, as sovereign and independent 
communities, with full powers to make their own laws and regulate .heir own policy, 
and fixes the terms upon which thoir intercourse with each other shall be conducted. 
Slavery is not contrary to the law of nations. The Constitution affords effectual security 
to the owners of slaves. The States have a plenary power to make all laws necessary 
for the ro-^ulation of slavery, and the rights of slave owners, while the slaves remain 
within their territorial limits." Every Northern man, every abolitionist even, where- 
ever found, as a citizen of the United States, is a party in solemn and public treaty with 
every Southern man-every slaveholder-as the other party, not to disturb the right of 
nroperiv in this respect, nor in any way thwart tiie intended purposes of its constimtion- 
a guar nty ; and by how far this may be done, by so far the obligations of good uith 
and citizens. ip arc not only departed from, but violated. Justice Story says, "the slave 



33 

holding- States insisted on a representation strictly according' to numbers; the non- 
slaveholding States contended for a representation according to the number of free per- 
sons only. The controversy was full of excitement, and was maintained with so much 
obstinacy on each side, that the Convention was more than oncR on the eve of dissolu- 
tion. At length the present system was adopted by way of compromise; it was a ne- 
cessary concession to thespirit of conciliation on which the Union was founded. View- 
ed as a measure of compromise, it is entitled to great praise." And certainly those 
who fail to act upon it, (whether in or out of the Church,) are entitled to great blame. 
The Hon. Edward Everett says, "it was deemed a point of the highest policy, by the 
non-slaveholding States, notwithstanding the existence of slavery in their sister States, 
to enter with them into the present Union, on the basis of the constitutional compact. 
That no union could have been formed on any other basis, is a fact of historical notori- 
ety, and it is asserted in terms by Gen. Hamilton, in the reported debates of the New 
York Convention for adopting the Constitution. This compact expressly recognizes 
the existence of slavery, and concedes to the States where it prevails, the most import- 
ant rights and privileges connected with it. Every thing that tends to disturb these re- 
lations, is at war with its spirit, and whatever, by direct or necessary operation is cal- 
culated to excite an insurrection among slaves, has been held, by highly respectable 
legal authority, an offence against the peace of the Commonwealth, which may be pro- 
secuted as a misdemeanor at common law. Our Fathers, the Adamses, the Hancocks, 
and other eminent patriots of the Revolution, although fresh from the battles of liber- 
ty, and approaching the question as essentially an open one, deemed it, nevertheless, 
expedient to enter into a Union with our brothers of the slaveholding States, on the 
principle of forbearance and toleration on this subject." Dr. Frost says, "it was a 
compromise of conflicting interests." 

Chief Justice Parker, of Massachusetts, holds the following language with regard to 
the slave holding States : "They might have kept aloof from the Constitution. That 
instrument was a compromise. It was a compact by which all are bound. We then 
entered into an agreement that slaves should be considered as property. Slavery would 
still have continued if no Constitution had been made." Chief Justice Robertson, al- 
luding to the adjustment of the slavery question in the Constitution of the United States, 
says, "it was the subject of a sacred compromise, which it would be neither safe nor 
just for either party, without the other's consent, ever to disturb." Alluding to the 
same subject, the Edinburgh Review observes, "American Statesmen labored, from the 
first, under two great difficulties, against which they have struggled on, by compromise 
and evasion — we mean the questions arising out of slavery, &c." Chief Justice Jay 
confirms the general opinion, "the Convention who formed and recommended the new 
Constitution, had an arduous task to perform, especially as local interests, and, in some 
measure, local prejudices were to be accommodated. Several of the States conceived 
that restraints on slavery might be too rapid, to consist with their particular circum- 
stances, and the importance of union rendered it necessary that their wishes on that 
head should, in some degree, be gratified." How they were consulted, and what ad- 
justment took place, we have seen. Alluding to this topic, the Rev. Mr. Freeman, of 
the North, remarks, of the compromise of the Constitution, "it concerns rights of pro- 
perty secured by the Federal compact, upon which our liberties mainly depend. It is a 
part of ths collection of political rights, the least invasion of any one of which would, of 
course, impair the tenure by which every other is held. When the Federal compact was 
formed, the entire abolition of slavery was a favorite object with many, but they knew that 
this or the Union must be surrendered. They had no alternative but to leave it as they 
5 



34 

found it existing intlie South, or fail of the great desideratum of a Union of the States. 
The legal construction is, that the South, who hold slaves, retain the right of exclusive 
regulation over them ; which right the United States cannot touch." He adds, "any 
measures, on our part, of a coercive nature, or calculated to disturb the domestic ar- 
rangements of the South, would be a violation of our political contract, and of good 
faith. Whatever we do, should be so done as not to put in jeopardy the peace of the 
slave holding States. It is not enough to say that the Constitution is violated by any 
action endangering the slave holding portion of our country — a higher law than the 
Constitution forbids this unholy interference." A judicious observer remarks, of the 
gradual abolition of slavery in the United States, "in undertaking a work of this mag- 
nitude, compromises will be found as necessary as they were in forming the Federal 
compact." An influential English Journal has recently attempted to prove, at length, 
that the "only barrier to general emancipation, in the United States, is the Federal Un- 
ion, which defies alike humanity and reform." Testimonies to this effect might be mul- 
tiplied indefinitely, but it cannot be necessary. 

Such, then, is the true position of the North on this question, nor can they separate 
tiieir moral from their civil relations, as paities to th^ Constitution : they are all, by 
deliberate consent, connected with slavery, and if they get rid of it, without the consent 
of the Southern States, unless these shall violate the national compact, they get rid of 
truth, honor, and good character, at the same time. It is, too, a well understood prin- 
ciple of law and morality, in the construction of compromises, that the temper of the 
parties which led to compromise, remains one of its conditions; and either party of- 
fending, in this respect, violates an important obligation contracted in becoming a par- 
ty. Let this be applied to the slavery question, and its application will be seen at 
once. Legislative contracts are common in all governments, having the force, some- 
times, of treaty, and sometimes of compromise, and often both. That this is the char- 
acter of the national'compact, binding every citizen, church members as well as others, 
it would be worse than stupid to deny. That the result of all legislation in the Meth- 
odist Church, has been a standing la^D of forbearance, conformably to civil obligation, 
has been shown with equal clearness, thus showing that tlio compromise of the Protest 
has been the household law of the Church ever since the subsidence of the first aboli- 
tion excitement, under the early English Preachers. Abstract law, involving compro- 
mise, can only be carried into effect by acts of kindness, and the ministry of the affec- 
tions, without which it is a lifeless text, unexplained by living example, and must fail 
to accomplish the purposes of its enactment. This view of the subject applies equally 
to North and South, and should be well considered by both. 

It has been repeatedly decided, and is a commonly received truth, both in common 
law and equity jurisprudence, that a simple decree, in form of law, may be proved a 
treaty compact or compromise, by showing the original relative position of tlie parties 
interested, and the obvious indications of purpose and intention as inferable from the 
external circumstances, leading to the action assumed and admitted. Law, viewed in 
the light of reason, purpose, motive, should always be explained by the context ; that 
is, the circumstances giving it birth. This is what the Protest meant by the reasons of 
law, instead of the strange misconceptions of the Reply. In abatement of the force of 
this reasoning, it has been urged, with some show of plausibility, tiiat, mixed up with 
the compromises of the Constitution, was the conventional understanding, that the 
South should address itself to the work of emancipation, after 1>0S, as it had not done 
before. In reply to this, three facts are especially worthy ot notice. Lst, A perma- 
nent provision of the Constitution contemplates and authorizes a d;lTerent result, ^d' 



3f5 

What is assumed, was long' and tenaciousJy exacted as a condition of Union, and per- 
emptorily refused by the South, whether in whole or in part — the South refusing to con- 
federate, unless the control of ihe difficulty siioukl be left to the States directly involv- 
ed in it, without the rightof other States to interfere in anyway. But, 3d, It is well 
known that a large portion of the South were favorable to gradual emancipation, provi- 
ded any disposition could bo made of the free black population, consistent with the 
welfare of the States giving them freedom. It was early ascertained, however, that 
both the old and the new free States were inexorably resolved to exclude the free black 
population, as far as possible, from their limits, and throw the whole burden upon the 
South, although the slave trade of the North had been the principal means of filling 
the South with slavery; and this state of things imposed upon the South the necessity, 
and gave them the right, of managing this most difficult question in the best way they 
could, in view of the common welfare of all concerned. 

On this subject, Mr. Webster remarks, "In my opinion the domestic slavery of the 
Southern States is a subject within the exclusive control of the States them.selves, and 
this, I am sure, is the opinion of the North. Congress has no authority to interfere 
in the emancipation of slaves, or in the treatment of them, in any of the States. This 
was so resolved by the House of Representatives, when Congress sat in New York, in 
1790, on the report of a committee consisting almost entirely of Northern members, 
and I do not know an instance of the expression of a different opinion, in either house 
of Congress, since. The servitude of so great a portion of the population of the South 
is undoubtedly regarded at the North as a great evil, political and moral, but it is re- 
garded, nevertheless, as an evil, the remedy of which lies with those Legislatures, 
(Southern,) to be provided and applied according to their own sense of policy and du- 
ty." General Washington, in urging the adoption of the Federal Constitution, in vie v/ 
of a Union of the Stales, says, in language which should never be forgotten, "I do 
most solemnly believe that this or dissolution awaits us, and is the 07ily alternative." 
Let this language of Washington be borne in mind, in connection with the fact, that 
the reasons and necessity which influenced the judgment of Washington, in 1787, have 
been increasing in number and weight ever since. Must not every person of ordinary 
discernment perceive that compromise is the great conservative principle of both the 
political and the social system in the United States, and so far as the Church or ecclesias- 
tical legislation shall fail to conform to this principle of Union, the Church must bear- 
rayed against the State, and hostile to its most vital interest, so far as these may be 
dependant upon such Union. The subject of slavery being, as all must admit, compro- 
mised in the Constitution of the United States, and all citizens of all the States, free 
and slave, being parties to the compromise, all law, and of course any possible form 
of ecclesiastical jaw, not in harmony with this arrangement, must infringe the guaran- 
ty of the great national compact. If it be said the Church is a voluntary associa- 
tion, with fixed conditions of membership, it does not affect the reasoning, for every 
such compact necessarily :5ubject to the higher, is, in itself unlaufid, unless in confor- 
mity with the greater over-riding it, and to which every citizen of the United States is 
a party. It is not intended to denounce the motives or conduct of those who may be 
opposed to the Constitution, in this respect, provided they do not resist its control, or 
seek to change it by improper means. But it is intended to say, that those who act so 
as to do the one or the other, cannot be regarded as good citizens. It is meant to say, 
that any attempt, by the Church, or ecclesiastical authority, to contravene civil law or in- 
validate civil rights, is not only without warrant from the Bible, but pours contempt upon 
the word of God, and the admitted obligations of the christian profession. Slavery in the 



36 

Southern States, viewed as limited confederating sovereignties, is local and provincial ; 
but as it regards the Union of the States, it is Federal and National, by contract of the Con- 
stitution itself; and every essay, individual or social, by Churcli or State, to unsettle the 
compromise of that instrument, reduces the value, and endangers the perpetuity of the 
Union. And that large portions of the Methodist Episcopal Church are beginning to act 
no unconspicuous part in this respect, (however unintentionalh',) is a prevalent opinion in 
the South, and when it is disavowed, let the grounds of this opinion be set aside by sat- 
isftictory evidence ; and until this is done, all denial will be mere declamation. 

Unless the national pledge of the Constitution, binding every citizen of the confede- 
racy, is violated by the North, there is no likeliliood of disturbance, or revolt by the 
slaves and free negroes of the South. If disturbance and revolt should take place, it 
will be upon direct or virtual invitation from the North ; and that the North may have 
no reason or pretext for such a course, it greatly, imperatively, behooTes the South 
not to withhold from the North, any consideration, claim, or indemnity, authorized by 
the compromise of the Constitution. I would invoke the South to cherish its honor 
and consult the interests of the whole Union in this respect. That general emancipa- 
tion, if pressed upon us by the North, would lead to revolt and conflict, admits of no 
doubt. In the proportion, therefore, that individuals, political parties, or churches, 
ehall lend themselves to a course of action calculated to bring about such a result, and 
the consequent disunion of these States, by aggression upon Southern rights, in the 
same proportion will history hold them accountable for the treason. It is a grave sug- 
gestion, and we ask that it may be gravely considered. If the North cannot proceed 
much further, without danger to the South, and the Methodist Episcopal Church, North, 
shall continue to encourage aggression, after the fashion of the late General Confer- 
ence proceedings, and prior Methodist movements in the North, wiiat must be consid- 
ered the true attitude of the Church, with regard to her pledge in the Constitution of 
the United States, to say nothing of her own abused legislation on the subject? Who 
will fail to perceive, that, in retreating from the evil, by a peaceful separation of juris- 
diction, the South are seeking to prevent an issue to which the North are pushing us 
with unrelenting purpose? We ask not the North to approve slavery. We do not ask 
them to cease warring against it, so far as such war may be protected by right. 
But we do ask the North to respect justice and good faith, in connection with the ori- 
ginal compact, and subsequent compromises, binding the North and the South together 
as one great people. The fact will obtrude itself, as we proceed, upon the common 
sense of every reader, that the same specific reasons, calling for a compromise adjust- 
ment in our political, require it in our ecclesiastical relations, North and South; and 
the numerous proofs of this Review, drawn from a great variety of unrelated sources, 
will show that the result has been the same with regard to both. Accordingly, in the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, while the existing law, from time to time disapproved the 
system of slavery, it distinctly offered the overture, that, under specified circumstances, 
slave holding should not be urged in bar to any of the rights and privileges of the mem- 
bership or ministry, and hence the compromise, so stoutly denied by the Reply. From 
the suggestive character of much of the reasoning we have introduced, the discerning 
reader will have perceived that the compromise argument of the Protest may be viewed 
with advantage to its evidence, in other points of light. Even tiie common law of so- 
ciety, regulating social intercourse between the North and the South, since the abolition 
of slavery in tlic former, has been one of compromise, without which, such intercourse 
must have been as unpleasant as limited and inconvenient. And how handsomely and 
generously this law has been acted upon, by the Storeys, the Wobsters, and the Everetts, 



37 

and intelligent thousands in the North, (upon whom, and their like in the South, de- 
pend the hopes of the country,) none need be told. It is Religious Fajialics and Polil- 
ical Demagogues, whose vandal abuse of the law of comit}', between the North and the 
South, is working the ruin of our Constitutional Union. But again : all law is a con- 
tract, and equivalence of consideration is presumed to be the motive determinintr the 
parties, necessarily existing under every government, to consent and submission. Dis- 
turb, then, one of the contracting parties in the possession and use of the equivalent, 
always implied, so that expected advantage is not realized, and the result is a violation 
of contract, and an impairment of right. 

Let this principle be applied, in the case of the Southern Methodist slave holder, say 
Harding or Bishop Andrew, with the legislation and assurances of the Church full in 
view, and can the conclusion be resisted, that the Church is disposed to meddle with 
rights and principles, guarantied by the stipulations of law, contrary to public assuran- 
ces given by the Church] Justice Story says, "any law which enlarges, abridges, or in 
any manner changes the inleniion of the parlies, (in contracts, whether of law or 
otherwise,) resulting, (by fair inference,) from the stipulations in the contract, neces- 
sarily impairs it." He adds: "a grant made by a State to a private individual, (and of 
course by a Church to a minister or member,) and accepted by him, is a contract, and 
cannot be revoked by any future law." So also, "a charter granted by the State to a 
company, is a contract, and equally binding to the State as to the grantee." Take now 
the "law," the "grant," the "charter," of the Methodist Episcopal Church, pledging that 
under circumstances specified, her Southern ministers and members, shall not be dis- 
turbed by the Church with regard to the slaves they may so hold, and compare it with 
the action and avowed policy of the Majority in this contest, and what is the inference? 
Apply the above well known principle of law and equity, to the contract character of the 
legislation of the Church on slavery, which is a property as well as a moral question, 
and will it not be seen, that the Protest on this subject, is but too full of truth and rea- 
son] We introduce, on this subject, for the purpose of proof and illustration, numer- 
ous analagous principles, facts, and cases, not merely to prove the doctrine of the Pro- 
test, but also to show, with what claim to candor and acquaintance with the subject, the 
Reply opposes to it the most confident denial, and treats the whole topic, as scarcely 
worthy even the sneer of superior information, with which it is dismissed. Havino- al- 
luded to ihe property aspect of the question, it is not unworthy of notice here, that it 
would seem to have been the purpose of the Church, to give it secular and civil, rather 
than the high moral rank claimed for it, by the late General Conference, inasmuch as 
the section on slavery, in the Discipline, is excluded from the moral part of it, u-here it 
was once found, and comes in under the head of "Temporal Economy of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church," ostensibly at least, treating the subject as one involving the legal 
relations of property, a.ndilhereforG not within the jurisdiction of ecclesiastical law. 
Bat that the Church has claimed, and continues to claim, the authority to interfere with 
the civil rights of her ministers, as it regards slave property, it is useless to deny, and 
the difficulty and delicacy of such claim, must always connect with the fact, that by spe- 
cial compact and deliberate compromise, in the Federal Constitution, such rights are 
placed beyond the reach of any kind of infringement, without an invasion of constitu- 
tional right. No other species of property in the nation, is in the same category. By 
this time perhaps, the reader will be pretty well prepared to decide upon the force of 
one of the principal positions of the Reply, that the warranted protection of the rights 
of slave holders, by the constitution and laws of the United States, and the States res- 
pectively where slavery exists, can be no ground of argument in this discussion. It 



38 

may be seen that wliilein some States the citizen is not, in others, as in Georgia, he is 
••required" to Iiold slaves— that instead of simply "allowing" a citizen to do so, when- 
ever he becomes tiie owner of slaves, they throw about him legal constraint and imniu- 
nily, at the same time. 

Legislation upon the principle of mutual accommodation, has always been regarded 
fis a legal compromise. The Reply admits a struggle in the Church for sixty years. 
No struggle of course, could exist without parties, and finally the parties meeting on 
ground, not the first choice of either, the result is compromise. Unable to see by means 
of the same optics, on the subject of slavery, how was it possible for the Nortli and 
South to unite and co-operate, except on the ground of compromise? The very showing 
of the Reply, furnishes the premises from which, in part at least, the conclusion of the 
Protest is drawn. A slight examination of the Protest will show, thai it was not in- 
tended to speak of any special statute or enactment, but of the purpose and spirit of 
general law, declared by special acts at different time?, and adjudications had upon 
them as giving the character of a compromise to our legislation. All these, with their 
various relations, reasons and bearings, are brought in, in aggregation, and compromise 
is assumed as the result. In charging upon the Majority want of good faith, in dis- 
regarding this compromise, it is plain the Protest intended, and we still think most 
justly, to represent the law as a declaration of trust, the object of the trust created, be- 
ing the protection of character and right, imder icell defined circumstances. But the Ma- 
jority proceeded to withdraw the protection and destroy the relief afforded by law, and in- 
stead of the protection and relief pledged by law, actually infict the ivrong it was the 
purpose of the law to prevent. On the final legislation of the Church respecting slave- 
ry, Dr. Bangs says, "various enactments had been passed from one General Conference 
to another, willi a view to regulate the practice of slavery in the Methodist Episcopal 
Church— an evil this, which it seemed impossible to control, much less to eradicate from 
the ranks of our Israel. From the organization of the Church in 1784, slavery had 
be€*n pronounced an evil, and a variety of expedients had been resorted to for the pur- 
pose of lessening its deleterious tendencies, where it seemed unavoidably to exist. 
Finding, however, tliat the evil was beyond the control of ecclesiastical law, as to its erad- 
ication from the Church — the General Conference so modified the section in the Dis- 
cipline on slavery, as to read" — as it now does. This is the faithful language of his- 
tory, and gives a clear idea of the compromise action of the Church, in the management 
of this most impracticable difficulty. "Such may, through the force of circumstances, be- 
come the state of society, that great moral evils may be tolerated, where the conviction 
is clear, that acts of prohibition would produce evils far more extensive and far more 
to bo deprecated. So damaged, or disordered, or complicate, by the practice or misfor- 
tunes of a former age, may become the very texture of society, and so peculiar the re- 
lations, which as a people we sustain to each other, that an immediate and entire correc- 
tion of the evil, may be impracticable ; and that, therefore, neither individnnls nor so- 
ciety, are bound to attempt it." — Plea for Africa. "We do indeed tenderly sympathize 
with those portions of our Church and country, where the evil of slavery has been en- 
tailed upon them, where a great and the most virtuous part of the community, abhor 
slavery and wish its extermination, as sincerely as any others ; but where the number of 
slaves, their ignorance and vicious habits generally, render an immediate and univer- 
sal emancipation inconsistent alike with the safety and iiappiness of the master and 
slave." — General Assembly Presbyterian Church. The remedial compromise course re- 
commended in these extracts, involves the principle intended to be protected by the law 



of exception, as distinguished from that of the general rule, in section lOlh of the Dis- 
cipline. 

The argument of the Reply, is without any semhlance of pertinence or force, in all 
those cases coming under the provisional exception of the Discipline, that is, where 
emancipation is impracticable, without an evasion or violation of law, and these were 
the very cases to which the Reply was confined, by the premises of the argument. The 
laws of nearly all the Southern States, forbid emancipation ; it is the civil duty of the 
citizen not to attempt it ; and in many of the States, as in Georgia, severe penalties ac- 
company the prohibition. Is this true of the absurd and offensive examples urged by 
the Majority as analagons? Does Southern !aw forbid the voluntary discontinuance of 
the theatre, the grog-shop, the card tabic, or race course? If not, what becomes of 
the sophistry by which it is gravely attempted to overthrow the reasoning of the Pro- 
test? Although the slave is not a citizen proper, yet the common denunciation that he 
is a mere chattel, &c., betrays alarming ignorance or want of candor. He is directly 
recognized as an inhahiiant, and is represented as such in the National Legislature. 
He is an inhahiiant in charge, under the guardianship of a citizen proper, and this civil 
relation is created and protected by the supreme and municipal law of this country. 
Both create an essential ditference between property in slaves, and all other kinds of 
property, and hence the absurdity as well as injustice of the position above. Was it 
competent for a free and sovereign people, in organizing a government for themselves, 
to decide that they would have among them, by allowing them to remain, a class of 
human beings, introduced into the country without their agency, by subjecting them to 
the kind of inhabitanci/ just described? If yea, then what right has a Church to med- 
dle with such civil arrangement? Is the right derived from their own civil relations? 
We have seen, that any original right they may have had, has been surrendered by con- 
tract. And what is their religious right? Before any can be established, they must 
first prove a right to resist civil authority, and also a right, secondly, to abolish the re- 
lation in question. If nay, be the answer— then the Church is in conflict with the gov- 
ernment, and government, rather than the civil relation established by it, becomes the 
proper object of attack, and all interference with the subject is beginning to assume its 
legitimate character of opposition to government and civil authority. Great declama- 
tory stress is laid upon the inconsistency of slavery, with the freedom and equality as- 
sumed in behalf of all men, in the Declaration of National Independence, and the high 
character and insulted shades of the signers of that instrument, are invoked in argu- 
ment and declamation, against the allowableness of slavery as an element of the poli- 
tical organization. This Declaration was the noble deed of a noble band of patriots, 
and was considered as binding the nation, because the act of their representatives. It 
sliould not be forgotten however, that the same and kindred conscript fathers, were the 
authors of the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution of the United Staters, in 
both which, they acted upon the declared principle, that the people of the confederating 
States, could never become one nation, without a compromise, fixed and conclusive in 
its terms, on the subject of slavery, and the ichole people, North as well as South, rati- 
fied an arrangement to this eJJ'ecL Why such frequent and flippant appeals to the De- 
claration, never intended as a rule of action, to the utter disparagement of the Consti- 
tution, ordained as d/je^/eai rz«'e o/ arii/Dn «)///» all concerned.' The Declaration com- 
mits the people to general principles only, the Constitution binds them to a given course 
of conduct. It is their own act, not that of their representatives merely. It is the 
covenant oath and witness of their national existence, honor, and safety ; and the man 
who can violate this covenant stipulation, as elsewhere explained, under cover of 



40 

Church relationship, creed, conscience, or party organization, is an unworthy and dan- 
gerous citizen of the United States. And every Church attempting to control the ques- 
tion of slavery, upon any other than the compromise principle guarantied, yj^rt soIe?jini, 
by the whole people of the United States, is guilty of an attempt to unsettle a principle, 
upon the adjuslment of which, the original fact of confederation turned exclusively ; 
and such Church fo acting, must prove dangerous to the union of the United Stales. 
The true doctrine of the Methodist Episcopal Church, as avowed and published up to the 
last General Cunference, has been, that tolerating slavery, in the membership, she has 
required her ministers, in view of orders, to free themselves from slavery, if connected 
with it, where it could be done consistently with the laws, and the welfare of the libe- 
rated slave. Beyond this the Church has not gone. Vie have shown this to be, in 
substance, the opinion of the Bishops and of the General Conferences of 1836 and 
1840, in their official addresses. Evidence to the same effect, has been brought to bear 
from a great variety of sources, all tending to present the legislation of the Church on 
the subject of slavery, in its true and proper light, as based upon the principles of 
conventional compromise in conformity with tlie civil compact betvveen the North and 
the South. We have seen at every step, that there has been real and bona fide compro- 
mise, although nominal baptism to this effect, may have been wanting. We regard, 
too, the legislation of the Church, as we have exhibited it, not only as rational and safe, 
but as much more accordant with the Scriptures, than the plans and projects to which 
it stands opposed. If we survey the entire aspect, in which the whole subject is pre- 
sented in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments ; if we turn to the fathers of 
the first four centuries of tlte christian era, as likely to reflect in their writings, the 
decisions of Inspiration in the case ; if we take the occasional notices of profane histo- 
ry on the subject ; it will be seen, that while the moral code of Judaism and the genius 
of Christianity may stand opposed to slavery, as one of the many forms of civil oppres- 
sion, and inconsistent with our conceptions of natural right, and the promised regene- 
ration of human society, there is, nevertheless, in all these records, a distinct recogni- 
tion of the jural origin of slavery, and its necessary connection with civil polity, and 
we no where, in any of them, meet with the language of denunciation and overthrow, 
with regard to it. There is no attempt to alter or disturb the relation, but simply to 
prescribe and inculcate the duties arising out of it, and revealing the retributions con- 
sequent upon any and every abuse of it. Indeed the whole subject as discussed by 
Christianity and managed by the primitive Ciiurch, is presented as one, not to be con- 
trolled or disposed of by either, except in due subordination to the civil authority, and the 
regulations of law, in which it has its origin. And in this great primary fact, we see, 
in principle, the true prototype of the conflict of laws, and consequent compromise treat- 
ment of the question, about which wo have had occasion to say so much. Contrast 
this with any true picture of modern abolition and anti-slavery, and in what do they 
agree? Heaven and Hell are scarcely less resembling. The one is a quiet garden 
scene, the other a stormy Pontus, "casting up mire and dirt." In connection with the 
general argument of the preceding pages, it is important to call attention again to the 
judgment of the General Conference of ISiO. At this Conference two large committees 
wore appointed on slavery and abolition, one the usual standing committee, consisting of 
a member from each Annual Conference, the other a special committee of nine members 
of the body, upon the well understood controversy, known as the "Westmoreland 
case." In addition to the matters referred to this latter committee, by resolution of 
the Conference, the committee were respectfully requested, by all the Bishops in coun- 
cil, when it was ascertained that the general committee did not intend to do so, to pre- 



41 

sent a full and analytical vieic of the whole law of the Church on slaver u, particularly in 
relation to the rights of the different grades of the rainistrv, as affected by slave hold- 
Jng, so that all discordant vie^-s and discrepancies in adnimistration might, if possible, 
be conclusively adjusted and settled, by authority of the General Conference, and the 
committee had this specific object in view, in making the elaborate report from which 
we have already made several extracts. The report was adopted with great unanimity, 
in fact without a negative voice in the body. This report was looked to as settling the 
diftculties It was intended to remove, and was fully relied upon by the South, as secu- 
ring all they desired in the premises. The decisior. of the General Conference, to 
which we ask attention, is too precise and unmistakable in language and meaning to 
admit of misconstruction, without an intention to deceive. -While the g-eneral rule 
(law,) on the subject of slavery, relating to those States, whose laws admit of eman- 
cipation, and permit the liberated slave to enjoy freedom, should be firmlv and constant 
ly enforced, the exception to the general rule, (law,) applying to those States where 
emancipation, as defined above, is not practicable, should be recognized and protected, 
v^iin eqna] fir7nness and impartialiti/.'' ''Therefore, 

-Resohed by the severed Annual Conferences in General Conference assembled, That 
under the provisional exception of the general rule (/a«.,) of the Church, on the sub- 
ject of slavery, the simple holding of slaves, or mere ownership of slave property, in 
Slates or Territories where the laws do not admit of emancipation, and permit the libera- 
ted slave to enjoy freedom, constitutes no legal earkier to the election or ordination of 
ministers to the VAKWVs grades of office, known in the ministry of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, and cannot, therefore, be considered as operating any forfeiture of 
rightinricicot such election and ordination.- Here is a solemn declaration, to the 
Church and the world, explanatory of an existing law, by the supreme judicial authori- 
ty of tne Cnurch, gravely announcing, that simple slave holding or ownership of slaves 
in States and Territories where emancipation is not practicable, and the liberated slave 
no. allowed to enjoy freedum, is not, in any way, a legal barrier to election and ordina- 
tion, and cannot operate any forfeiture of right, on the part of any minister of any grade, 
(Deacon, E.aer or Eishop,) in the Methodist Episcopal Church. And yet Drs. Durbin. 
Peck, and Elliott, ns solemnly declare, that the Church has always let it be known that 
slave holding, even under the provisional exception of the law, would, in the case of 
Bishops operate the forfeiture of right, which the General Conference stipulates, by 
formal decision, shall not take place, in the instance of any grade of ministers. And 
accordingly, without any change of the law, and in the very face of the above declara- 
tion of right, the last General Conference did, directly and outrightly, and under the 
precise circumstances specified, as rendering such action impossible, what the publiclv 
pledged faith of the Church had said, four years before, should not be done. Whether 
this amounts to the want of good faith, assumed in the Protest, let the good sense and 
upright feeling of the Church and world determine. 
Let us now turn to the back ground of tlie picture. 

It is more than two hundred years since the introduction of slaverv into this country 
under the exclusive direction of the British government. The colonies had no will or 
agency in bringing about this result, and it is a well known fact, that it was in contra- 
vention of their wishes. During this entire term, slaves have been reco..nized and held 
as property, under all the forms of government known to the country, Tnd the Church. 
should not Jorget. that it was the christian governments of Europe," in the 16th and 
1/th centuries, by which slavery, as a civil and domestic institution, was re-introduced 
and re-established among civilized nations, after its nominal abolition amon^ the Wes- 



42 

tern Gothic nations of thnt continent. And the christian European powers did, too, 
what had never been done before; they restricted ttie doom of serviuide to a sinj^le par- 
ticular race, and linked the destinies of slavery, in the system they established, with 
the nesrro family. That it was an outrage, is felt and admitted by all. That all have 
a right to seek the removal of the evil, is as readily admitted. It is, however, so in- 
terwoven with the very existence and life blood of a large portion of society, in this 
country, that it has long been a desideratum hoio this can be done, without the introduc- 
tion of greater evils. We have seen that the people of the non-slave holding States, 
have no right to attempt to control the question, in any form. Their right to appeal 
and remonstrance, provided they do not resort to means calculated to agitate and excite, 
and thus inflict direct injury upon the South, is not denied, it is believed, in any quar- 
ter. As a riglit of comity, it is admitted. All attempts, however, to compel or force 
the South, by exciting the popular mind, trying to produce disaffection among slaves, 
and so disturbing the social system, as to impair the value of conceded rights, and en. 
danger the common welfare, are barred by the Constitution, and will always meet with 
prompt and determined resistance from the South. But further, Iiowever it may be re- 
gretted, it cannot be disguised, that negro slavery now exists, connected with reputed 
inferiority of race, and the incurable disability of color, and both tending, however un- 
reasonably or unjustly, to perpetuate the evil. Unhappily in the enslavement of the 
negro, the worse than misfortune, the universal ignominy of color, adds to the hard- 
ship of servitude, and becomes a part of his evil destiny, even where that servitude is 
exchanged for nominal freedom. In this melancholy state of things, the outrage upon 
natural right, which all slavery implies, is made to derive countenance and support from 
nature herself, for it is but too true, that hitherto, all races of men in all time, have 
united, however wrongfully, in decreeing to the negro a separate social condition, and 
by consequence, destiny. Even when mixed up with other races, the negro has not 
been allowed to mingle. And it is a very singular fact, that the English, whether in 
Europe or America, have cherished the principle of exclusion, to which we allude, be- 
yond any other race known in history. 

Slavery at one time, was general throughout the colonies and afterwards States. But 
there were physical and invincible reasons in the North, why slavery should not obtain 
there, in the way and to the extent it did South. It was introduced and tried, but did 
not u-orkwell. The severity of the climate, poverty of the soil, and a necessary appeal, 
at an early date to manufactures and commerce as the staple pursuits of productive en- 
terprise, and to jwhich slave labor was found inapplicable, all tended to expel slavery 
from the North. The slave was soon found to be a bad bargain, upon the hands of the 
si^rewd producer. The constant influx too, of European adventurers, English, Irish, 
Scotch, Dutch, Swiss, and so of the rest, filling up the North to avoid competition with 
the more regular system of slave labor South, soon rendered Northern slave labor un- 
profitable, by the superiority and greater cheajiness of free labor, so that tiie political 
economy of the North alone, was quite sufiicient to either emancipate the Northern ne- 
gro, or send him a slave to the South. It was the interest and policy of the North, to 
get rid of the negro. It was a speculation worthy of Northern sagacity. Not so with 
the South. As early as the first instance of Nortiiern abolition, the slave question was 
one of lifeand death with the South. It was then and continues to be, vitally connected 
with the tenure by which life is held, and the order of society maintained. The greater 
value of the slave South, had been a centripetal force gradually attracting the slave 
from the North, for a long term of years, until wiien emancipation began, there was 
found but a small number to be got rid off*. Tiieir sale to Southern purchasers, had greatly 



48 

thinned the North of slaves as "unprofitable servants," and prepared the way for the 
emancipation of the balance. Northern humanity, which forbade the sale of the negro 
within the limits of Northern States, did not forbid his transportation and sale in the 
South, and to this process, the North owes a large share of its boasted freedom from 
slavery. Reasons have always existed in the South, both for the introduction and 
continuance of slavery, which never existed in the North, and it was as much the 
interest of the North to abolish slavery, as it was of the South to retain it. It was a 
business arrangement, resulting from motives of interest and policy with both, the 
South having the additional plea of its own safety to urge in the case. The North 
knew that to abolish slavery, was to banish the negro. The South knew that to abol- 
ish slavery, was to turn the negro loose, in countless numbers, without restraint or 
control. Its abolition North presented no danger, tlien or in prospect; but it is admit- 
ted on all hands, that its abolition South, at any time, for at least sixty years past, would 
have been attended with the most imminent danger. Even were the Southern States to 
try the experiment of keeping in slavery the present generation, while making legal 
provision for the freedom of the next, it would establish a principle, in the view of the 
mass of slaves, which would give birth to an amount of impatience and irritation, en- 
dangering the safety of the whole South. What was safe and laudable in the North, 
would have been suicidal and ruinous in the South. The inutility of slavery mino-led 
with and strengthened the religious convictions of the North. One of the fundamental 
principles of all slavery, the interest of the master, was attacked in the North, and 
made its appropriate impression. During all this period, however, emancipatiun in the 
South, without the removal of the negro, would have been, not Southern but National 
madness, for it would only have disposed and prepared the two races for mutual de- 
struction. Any state of things, tending to disturb the existing relations between the 
races in the South, and which does not at the same time, contemplate the removal of 
one, must lend to the destruction of one or both of them. Since the foundation of so- 
ciety, the white and black races have never co-existed, under the same government on 
equal footing, and never can. If the two races, as is entirely certain, cannot mingle, 
they must, as it regards equality of intercourse, wholly separate, and where the num- 
ber of blacks is considerable, such separation without removal is impossible, except in 
a state of slavery or civil discord. The whole order of society in the United States, 
must be first subverted and then re-modeled, before the negro can, by possibility, derive 
and enjoy the same benefits of society with the white man. It is incontestiblv true of 
the whole North, from Maine to Illinois, that in the proportion the legal distinctions 
between the white rnan and negro are abolished, new barriers to any thing like equality 
of intercourse, are studiously thrown up by the white population, by means of which, 
the negro is re-enslaved, and more hopelessly doomed, to all the disadvantages of both 
caste and condition. The whole course of the North, for half a century, proclaims their 
purpose and policy, not to mingle with the negro, and yet they are incessantly pursu. 
ing a course, the object of which is to compel the South to mingle with them, for this the 
South must do in some form, or else keep them in slavery, unless they can be removed. 
The repugnance of which we speak, is invincible. Nature, not less than the habit and 
the associations of ages, has established visible and indelible signs and reasons of separa- 
tion. If we subdue and overcome the mere fact of servitude, the evil remains, as it re- 
gards the actual condition and welfare of the negro, and in most instances is increased 
beyond estimation. Wherever they are found, the free negroes of this country are de- 
prived of all the more important privileges of social humanity, and are literally suffer- 
ing a debasement, in every thing except the name, worse than slavery. At every con- 



44 

tact with society tlipy are repulsed and put down. Their very color renders thein alien 
to all about tliem — to every other race. They have no country, and unprepared by their 
previous destiny to obey the voice and submit to the dictates of law and reason, few of 
them act as though they had any property in themselves. Thousands oF them perish 
annually for want of the protection and supply realized in a state of slavery. After 
an experiment of fifty years in the North, no elevation of the*>negro character, no im- 
provement of their condition has taken place. As slavery recedes the prejudice against 
the negro increases. All the non-slave iiolding States, and especially those where slave- 
ry has never existed, are intolerant even of the presence of the negro. Look at the im- 
partial humanity of Ohio and other free States, whose laws e.xclude not only the slave 
but tiie "free and equal" negro, and deny him not merely the right of holding property 
but even of residence. It is unlawful for any citizen of Ohio to employ a negro {free 
of course,) to do a day's work to keep him from starving, unless he shall have first given 
security, both for maintainance and good behavior. The whole movement of the North — 
the entire policy of the free States, has been a system of death to the negro. 

In their miserable freedom, so called, they have died at the rate of two to one, in a 
state of slavery. Interest or humanity may abolish abstract slavery, but the interposi- 
tion of omnipotence seems necessary to relieve the negro from the weigiit of disabili- 
ties beneath which he is crushed. The declaration of his freedom is a fraud in every 
State of this Union. Both prejudice and law proclaim it impossible, in the existing 
state of things. The ordinary eligibilities of citizenship are no where his. The white 
man and the negro may not separate, as to the "bounds of habitation," but they do 
not, cannot combine. They may be together, but to mingle is impossible. The dis- 
tinction, for example, as it relates to color alone, appears so founded in an invincible 
law of nature, that in no instance, in the history of civilization, has it yielded to the 
influence of circumstances. This may be all and utterly wrong ; our business is with 
the" fact only. Kindred reasons and argmnents maybe multiplied indefinitely. Dis- 
proportionate, inadequate compensation for labor, is assumed as a fundamental ele- 
ment — one of the chief disadvantages of slavery, and it is an argument principally re- 
lied upon by abolitionists, of every sect and color, and yet it is susceptible of the clear- 
est demonstration, that the slave of the South, (in an annual estimate,) gets more than 
the free negro of the North; and, by the showing of the Northern argument, is less a 
slave. Every victim of injustice is a slave, and such is the negro every where 
in the North. Crushed by the indirect tyranny of law, and the intolerance of 
public opinion, he is the miserable victim of all kinds of injustice and hard- 
ship. And what must be the sober decision of history with regard to those who 
pity the negro until he becomes free, and then starve him t'l death? The mooted 
question of negro rights and worth, and his title to Nortliern sympathy and pro- 
tection, are dropped the moment the tiegro beconies free, and appeals to the North- 
ern cowr/ of errors for the promised boon of equal, social and political rights. 
Notwithstanding all the paraded humanity of the North on the subject, no actual abo- 
Hlion of slavery has ever taken place in the United States. The proclamation to this ef- 
fect is an ifnposilion upon the civilized world. The servitude of the negro, and the in- 
justice and hardship of his lot have nie^rcly changed their form. The legal principle of 
slavery is aholishod in the North, but all New England, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, 
&c., do not contain a single negro who is free, in the sense of the Declaration of Amer- 
ican Independence — not one. No where does the negro meet the white man — no where is 
he met by him upon terms of equality. There is no civil, social, domestic, or even 
religious intercommunity of enjoyment or sufiering. They are deprived of the most 



4o 



important riglits of mankind. Both by law and public opinion tliey arc condemned to 
hereditary degradation and misery. Their liberty is a lie and a cheat. h\ what do they 
find themselves free, except to be neglected, scorned, and trodden nnder foot. Preui- 
dice, manners and custom, turn aside and bear down the fruitless provisions of legisla- 
tion. There is that constituently interwoven with the popular feeling of the American 
people, in relation to the unfortunate negro, which law can never efface. It is even 
true, that the prejudice against the negro increases with tiie progress of emancipation. 
Take any of the jN'orlhern States — that which nearest approaches the Utopia of mod- 
ern abolitionism, and notwithstanding the affranchisement of the negro in law, if a 
white person marry a negro, infamy is the result. Free negroes, with very few e.xcep- 
tions as to places, dare not avail themselves of the rigiit of suffrage, even where it is 
allowed. They are no where credible witnesses against white persons — (the attempt 
. of the late General Conference to make them such, notwithstanding.) There is not a 
State in this Union where a negro is essentially an equal party in an action at law. 
Where is the negro admitted as equal peer and compatriot with the wliite man J Wliere 
as juror, judge, or counsellor"? Is there any office of trust or honor to which he is el- 
igible"? What school receives the two races together, without being placed under pub- 
lic ban! Can the negro's money procure him a scat at the Theatre or Opera, without 
some signal of his inferiority offered in atonement to those who ,vish it to be under- 
stood they but tolerate his presence, albeit they have siconi him free and equal! What 
hospital or poor house receives him, e.xcept apart from the privileged white sufferer, 
without, it may be. half the sense or virtue of the negro"? Even ihe Church assigns 
him a distant seat and ditTerent altar. The grave itself perpetuates tiie distinction, by 
disowning the fellowship of his dust. In life and death alike, he is proscribed and 
trodden under foot as an alien and outcast, and his degradation is thus made to accom- 
pany him to the very gates of Heaven. And all this is true to a much greater extent 
in the North than in the South. The free negro North is used — allowed to live, if he 
can, and at any rate is at perfect liberty In die, but no where is he protected, encour- 
aged, and rewarded, in all the liberty-loving North. Parado.xical as it may seem, there 
is nothing resembling sympathy and equality of moral relation between the races, e.-c- 
cept in the South, where the one, in the proportion of seven in ten, is enslaved to the 
other. Here, to a great extent, the children of the two races grow up together, and, 
as a general rule, cherish for each otiier, in greater or less degree, interest and attach- 
ment. Similar reasoning applies to the houseJiold circle, as it regards adults. There 
is a natural sense of obligation and kindness, on the one hand, and of dependence and 
gratitude on the other, leading to many of the kinder offices of human intercourse, 
without which the heart must be utterly desolate. I do not claim for the South that 
this view of the subject applies to all slave holding individuals and fiimiles. There are 
but too many exceptions to the rule, and I shall not attempt to protect them from the 
execration they deserve, for neglect and cruelty in relation to their abused and suffer- 
ing slaves. Nor do I intend to charge upon the North, or free States, that tliere are 
no individuals or families who treat the negro as he deserves. I speak only of the 
general rule, in both cases, and am anxious to give full force lo ihe exceptions, both as 
it regards number and weight. Individuals and families in the South have, doubtless, 
acted infamously toward their slaves, and continue to do so, as individuals and fami- 
lies in the North have, and continue to act, towards their hired and apprenticed ser- 
vants, and formerly toward their slaves also. Most cheerfully do we bear testimony, 
that individuals and associations in the North have, in many instances, acted nobly to- 
ward the negro, whether free or slave. What we ask, is, that the exceptions, in both 
cases, may be fairly contrasted with the general rule. 



46 

The abolition of slavery has been extensively agitated, three several times in the 
United States. The first was about the time of the formation of the Federal Govern- 
ment. Shortly after the adoption of the Constitution, numerous abolition petitions 
reached Congress, under the administration of Washington, praying the interposition 
of the General Government. They were respectfully received and referred to an able 
committee, as all such petitions should be, and tiie report of the committee was, thai 
the Genera] Government had notliing to do with the subject — no right to inierfere in any 
way, as the matter belonged wholly to the slave holding Slates, without any right, on 
the part of individuals, societies, churches, or the free States, even, to meddle with it. 
And so the matter was disposed of, apparently lo the satisfaction of all concerned, and 
the excitement died away. 

The next abolition era, connects with the admission of Missouri, thirty years after, 
when Ihe compromise to which Me have alluded took place, and again settled the ques- 
tion. The third movement followed that of England, in relation to West India Slave- 
ry, and has continued ever since, although the movements — the emancipation proposed 
here, and that which took place in the West Indies — are utterly unanalogous. Here, 
the negroes are in the midst of us, locally mixed up with a great people, being to the 
white population as one in three. There, they were scattered among a cluster of dis- 
tant islands, and were twenty to one as to number, rendering an expensive military 
force indispensable to safety, in each island. Had four millions of negro slaves been 
mixed up with the people of England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales, does any sane per- 
son suppose they would have been emancipated by the English Parliament? Or rather, 
is it not certain they would not have been, unless their instant removal had been pro- 
vided for? It is an instance, therefore, of the most stupid injustice, to attempt to rea- 
son by analogy from the one to the other. Long before any appeal was heard from the 
North, the voice of the South was emphatic in tiie denunciation of negro slavery. The 
colonies of Virginia and Georgia, and even South Carolina, boldly remonstrated against 
tlie impolicy and inhumanity of the slave trade, and its consequences, when they knew 
their tSoiercign was a smuggling slave merchant, dividing the spoil with a large num- 
ber of his own subjects, and those of other nations. The South too, has always shown 
itself more ready than the North, to get rid of the negro by removal and colonization in 
Africa, or elsewhere, if it be found practicable. The great mass of Southern slave 
holders resist general emancipation, not because it is inconsistent with their interest, 
viewed as a question of political economy, but because they know it to be utterly incom- 
patible with their safety. Upon the consequences of tiie immediate, indiscriminate 
emancipation of the slaves of the South, or emancipation by any other than very grad- 
ual methods, I am not disposed to dwell. All sober minded men, however, indulge the 
apprehension, that were the slaves tlius let loose, they might be led to think and feel 
like the negroes of St. Domingo, butchering the whole European population, in grati- 
tude fur the decree of the French Assembly of 1791, dei;laring them "free and equal" 
to tlie whites. Who does not know, that every rash movement of the North endangers 
the safety of the South, and compels further resort to precautionary measures of safe- 
ty, thus subjecting the slave to an abridgement of right and enjoyment which had never 
been thought of but for the gratuitious obtrusion of Northern interference. 

It is already perceptible, that in the West Indies, unless other systems of servitude, 
the new lijpes oj slaxery already introduced, should check tlie tendencies of the eman- 
cipation act, imposed upon the Islands against tiieir consent, the European race, yield- 
ing to the negro, is likely to become extinct. And should the North impose a similar 
emancipation upon the South, in violation of the compromise of the Constitution, 



47 

among the immediate and necessary effects, sooner or later, tlie breaking up of the 
American Confederation, and the destruction of the nesfro race in the South must be 
numbered. Look at the Maroons of Jamaica : ever since their freedom they have utter- 
ly abandoned themselves to universal idleness, with all its attendant evils and vices, ob- 
durately refusing to labor, under any circumstances, even to prevent starvation. The 
bloody insurrections too, in the Island of Barbadoes, in 1816, taking into the account, 
causes and consequences, is a comment to the same general effect. Improvidence and 
idleness, vagrancy and crime, are the notorious fruits of emancipation in the United 
States and the West Indies. Crime, in tlie United States, among free negroes, is in 
something like tenfold proportion, compared with what it is among Southern slaves, 
nnd the moT\.a.]i\y is 7nnre than double. Our criminal and medical statistics abundantly 
attest these facts. A pretty extensive acquaintance with more than half the Statps of 
this Confederacy, and about an equal number. North and South, has led me to believe 
thai the slaves of the South are better conditioned and better satisfied than the free ne- 
groes of the North ; and, as a general rule, are better informed, especially on the sub- 
ject of their moral relations. And, also, that they are well disposed, and inclined to 
virtue and morality, greatly beyond those of the North, or the free negroes of the 
South. The latter too, do much better in the South than in the North. Two reasons 
have long operated accordingly, in driving free negroes from the North, where they 
properly belonged, to the South. First, the repulsive inhumanity of the North, in so 
treating them, that they have preferred seeking shelter in the Southern States. And, 
secondly, the fact, that even the free negroes, so injurious to the Southern slave inter- 
est, have generally fared better in the South than in the North; and thus a large pro- 
portion of the freed slaves of the North, especially from 1790 to 1830, subsisted, in 
fact, on Southern charity. 

About three millions and a half of slaves are now part and parcel of the population 
of the United States. They are here in our midst, and must be governed, and must 
have support. They were originally entailed upon us, against our will and wishes, by 
the mother country, during our colonial existence; but being here, they must remain 
and be controlled, unless some plan can be adopted for their removal. Remaining, how 
can they be governed, except in a state of slavery? livery State in the Union is dis- 
posed to cast off the few who are free. Every where their presence is regarded as an 
evil, if not nuisance. The South will not emancipate except upon condition of remo- 
val. The North will not consent to receive even a fair proportion of them, should they 
become free; and what is to be done with them? Tlieir gradual emancipation and re- 
moval has never been objected to by the South ; and carried out upon the principles of 
the original compromise of the Constitution, never will be. We say to our common 
country, /;-ee us of the danger, and ice consent to the removal of the evil. 

In this view of the subject, three questions press upon us : — our own good, in the 
slave States; the good of the negro, free and slave ; and the common good of the coun- 
try. In our deliberate judgment, those who are conducting the Northern crusade 
against Southern slavery, have no eye to either, or having any such end in view, have 
been infinitely unfortunate in the selection of means, and the temper displayed in the 
use of them. If the clamorous censors of Southern policy are the true friends of the 
negro, why do they, in the same breath urge emancipation in the South and legislate to 
exclude the negro from the free States? Is it merely intended in this way to annoy the 
South by a violation of the plain duties of citizenship, or are they willing to be under- 
stood as conceding that there is no chance for the negro except in the South? 



4S 

In any analysis of the fads of history and experience, connected with the general 
abolition movement und.er discussion, we are naturally led to judge of the principles 
and motives of those embari^ed in the movement, from their moral and religious char- 
acter and course of action in other directions and aspects. And as citizens and subjects 
of Great Britain have been very actively concerned for the last twelve or fifteen years 
in getting up and carrying on the great anti-slavery and abolition excitement in the 
Northern States, it will be proper to devote some attention to the moral character of the 
movement in both countries. In doing so, however, it is not intended, in speaking of 
Great Britain, or the Northern States, to include all persons, or the entire people of 
either. But as the more moderate and conservative portions of the people, in the one 
and the other, have not seen proper publicly to separate from the movement parties in 
question, by formal disapproval and condemnation of their course, it cannot be expect- 
ed that we should do more, by way of excepting them., than they have done themselves. 
That the movement in this country was set on foot by foreign (British) influence, has 
been so extensively avowed by the Church, that no proof of the fact can be called for. 
It has been assumed in Episcopal and General Conference addresses. It has been dis- 
tinctly avowed, again and again, in the official papers of the (hurch at New York and 
Cincinnati. It is elaborately declared to be the I'act, by Dr. Eansrs, in his Plistory of 
the Church. It was repeatedly avowed by American speakers, in the famous meeting 
of malcontents and agitators on this subject, ever since praying to be known as "the 
World's Convention." The fact is notorious, and will not be denied. As the United 
Stales preceded England in the abolition of the slave trade, and was the first of civil- 
ized nations in an attempt to redress the wrongs of Africa, admitting the equally noble 
conduct of England in doing the same a short time after, England can claim no credit 
on this score to which we are not equally entitled. We ask attention to British policy 
jn other aspects connected with slavery. Look then, at the British Government abol- 
ishing slavery in the West Indies, but pursuing a wholesale system incomparably 
worse in her East India possessions. The British Asiatic Journal says, "the whole of 
Hindostan, with the adjncent possessions, is one magnificent plantation, pecpled hij 
more than one hundred millions of slaves, belonging to a company of gentlemen in Eng- 
land, whose power is far more unlimited than that of any Southern planter over his 
slaves." In the very act of West India emancipation, it is distinctly declared, (see 
section 41.) that the slavery of other parts of the British Dominions was not to be in 
any way affected by the act. Beside the slavery just noticed in connection with the East 
India Company, there is a well known government system of slave ownership in Mala- 
bar, the Islands of Ceylon, St. Helena, and othe.- places, where the English Govern- 
ment is a notorious slave-factor — a regular jobber in the purchase and sale of slaves. 
The system is carried on, enlarged, and perpetuated, by the purse and bayonet of the 
Government. — Asiatic Journal and Parliamentary Debates. Numerous English author- 
ities might be cited, to show that England determined to sacrifice her West India Col- 
onies to bring the ];roductions of the Ganges and Barompooter in competition witli 
those of the slave holding portion of the United States and the Brazils. The British 
Government has formally sanctioned the entire Hindoo system of slavery. The same 
sanction has been extended to the Maliomedan system, by which the Government has 
become a pander to both, spread out among a liundred and fifty millions of British sub- 
jects in India. England has gone farther. She has, actually, by the origination of a 
separate, independent slave trade, established, in India, a //urr? system of her own, by 
the activity and vigor of which, the children of Africa and others, are being annually 
enslaved by tliousnnds. An English witness, Dr. Bowcring, affirms, of British subjects 



49 

in India, "the entire population of this vast empire are subjected to the n>ost degrading 
servitude — a deeper degradation than any produced by West Indian or American slave- 
ry. Thpy are perishincr by thoiisands and hundreds of tiiousands from famine, while 
the store houses of the East India Tlompany are filled with bread, wrnns: from the soil 
by a standing army." "Uncounted multitudes sell themselves and children into slavery 
by permissinn of the British Government." — Parliamentary Papers, 1839. The same 
authority declares, that "an external slave trade, hy importation, including all the at- 
tendant horrors of a regular system of kidnapping, is carried on." The Duke of Wel- 
lington remarked lately, in the House of Lords, "slavery does exist in that country — 
domestic slavery in particular, to a very considerable extent; yrt I would be careful 
how I interfered with the matter. I would recommend your Lordships to deal lightly 
in the matter if you wish to retain your sovereignty in India." McNaughton says, 
"thousands are at this moment living in a state of hopeless, unauthorized bondage. 
They h^ve sanctioned the free importation of slaves into their territories from foreign 
States." Sir Robert Peel lately made the charge, and oifered the evidence, in the Na- 
tional Legislature, that "British Merchants are, even now, deeply and extensively en- 
gaged in the slave trade." That country too, is at this moment engaged in a new sys- 
tem of English negro slavery, by \he forcible capture of negroes in Africa, compelling 
them to apprentice themselves, by the insulting mockery of legal forms, for a term of 
fourteen years; and whether this be with or without nominal security as to their free- 
dom at the expiration of the term, it is essentially a violation of the compact of nations, 
relating to the slave trade, and a species of legal, but real piracy, by no means in bad 
keeping with other demonstrations of the English Government in the selection and use 
of means and measures for the purposes of national aggrandisement. Finding, too, 
that they cannot rely upon the labor of the free blacks, emancipation in the West In- 
dies has been succeeded by another experiment — the enslavement of the Hill Coolies of 
India, to take the place of West India freed negroes. Both these systems of slavery 
are now in operation for the benefit of the West Indies, and other tropical portions of 
the Empire. 

The legalized kidnapper seizes ihe hand of the poor captive on the banks of the Gam- 
bia, and compels his signature to a fraudulent indenture, about which he knows no 
more than the monkeys chattering in the woods about him, and he goes to the West 
Indies a slave, to prove the practicability of ample production, notwithstanding the 
emancipation of his predecessor! The Coolies,' a poor, swarthy, degraded caste of la- 
borers in India, existing in great numbers, and generally in a state of starvation and 
suffering, are prevailed on to go to the West Indies, and when they reach there, as 
apprenticed slaves, the negroes of the Antilles refuse all association with them, as 
more degraded than themselves. In India they are oppressed beyond the means of 
subsistence, and in 1838, five hundred thousand of them perished of famine in a single 
district. This state of things will always be sufficient to secure emigration, and sup- 
ply the West Indies with slaves. No corner of the British Empire can be pointed out 
in which there is not worse slavery, in some shape or other, than in the United States. 
Who can help seeing that the fetters were struck from eight hundred thousand negroes, 
in the West Indies, only to be fastened upon as many European sufferers, of the labor- 
ing classes, at homel It has been more than intimated, in numerous English publica- 
tions, and the Debates of Parliament, that speculations upon the reflex bearings West 
India emancipation is to have upon the fate cf our Southern negroes, and especially 
in connection with the production of our Southern staples, rice, cotton, tobacco, and 
sugar, will go far to explain the philanthropy of the West India emancipation act. 
7 



50 

England has betrayed and avowed her policy, and explained her motives in too many 
forms, to admit of doubt as to the intentions of government. That thousands of the 
good people of England saw in it nothing but good will to the negro, we readily admit. 
But when we see England, as we are compelled lo, piiining and starving millions, by a 
system of oppression inconceivably worse than the slavery of the United States, we 
must be allowed to judge of motives by other tests than mere profession. How does it 
happen that England is so deeply interested in the fortunes of Southern slavery in this 
country, and at the same time so unfeelingly inattentive to the cry of millions of her 
own suffering subjects in British India'! Why so readily excited into activity by car- 
icature appeals in behalf of the American slave, while the living cry of her own en- 
slaved and starving millions does not affect her? Why are the Cabinet, at Washington, 
as well as the people of the United States, favored with remonstrance and homily on 
the subject of civil oppression, while an unheeded voice is hoard pealingf through the 
diameter of the Globe, from Cuddalone, Tanjore. Madras, the Bengal Presidency, and 
other parts of outraged India, asking in vain for redress? We only quote British history 
when we state, that in two famines alone, occasioned solely by the forced exclusive mo- 
nopoly of the grain trade, immense masses of human beings — all subject;; of British mili- 
tary despotism, equal in number to the tchoJe negro pnpulaiion of Lhe United Stales — per- 
ished from sheer starvation, while within reach, in the English granaries, in both in- 
stances, were locked up and guarded by military force, ample means of subsistence and 
supply for all these murdered millions, and only and yet inexorably withheld from 
motives of pelf and cupidity, in view of enhanced price! The acute and discerning 
Southey says, of the great mass of the English poor, "they are deprived, in childiiood, 
of all instruction and enjoyment. They grow up without decency — without comfort — 
without iiopc — without morals, and without shame. They bring fortii slaves like them- 
selves, to tread in the same path of misery." The North British Review remarks, 
"there is fair ground to question, whether, notwithstanding the existence of slavery, 
with all its attendant evils, there be a larger proportional amount of ignorance, crime, 
and misery, in the United States of North America, than is to be found in Great Bri- 
tain and Ireland. The abolition of slavery in America would be a far greater triumph 
of principle, humanity, and courage, than was the emancipation of slaves in the Bri- 
tish Colonies ; its abolition there would be much more honorable. The physical con- 
dition and general treatment of slaves in the United States are better than they were in 
our West India colonies previous to emancipation. Our countrymen, in general, have 
treated the Americans unkindly and unfairly. It would have been hopeless to have ex- 
pected West India proprietors to have emancipated their slaves without compulsion. 
We are very doubtful whether, if slavery had stood in the same relation to us it does to the 
inhabitants of the Southern States of America, there be even now enough principle, hu- 
manity, and courage, in the community of Great Britain to have effected its abolition." 
It is well known that quite recently the English Government passed an "order in coun- 
cil," for the transportation of one hundred thousand negroes from Africa w Demarara alone, 
and offers a bounty upon the head of every negro brought into Sierra Leone for trans- 
portation to the West Indies; tiius hrihing the African to make a slave of his fellow. 
It is true these poor creatures are called apprentices — being slaves in fact. There is 
not one fifth part the amount of slavery in the United States there is in the British Em- 
pire. In fact, England owns more slaves, detached from the soil, (not serfs or vassals,) 
than all other civilized nations put together. Allison, in his History of Europe, avows 
the opinion of Ireland, that "it would be a real blessing to its inhabitants, in lieu of 
the destitution of tVei.'dom, to obtain the protection of slavery." Murry, the English 



51 

traveler, says, of the slaves of the South, "if they could forget that they are slaves 
their condition is decidedly better than the great mass of European laborers." The 
London Quarterly Review, speaking of West India emancipation, says, "the results of 
that experiment are extremely doubtful. Let us heicare of increasing the suspicion that 
we are willing to urge our example on the United States, from motives not of philan- 
thropy merely, but in part at least of mercantile calculation."' It has been avowed in 
England, since 1840, in twenty different forms, especially in leading political journals, 
that British tropical production cannot compete with American, until the American sys- 
tem of slavery is undermined. These journals have invoked attention to facts, so cu- 
rious and instructive, that we shall be excused for noticing a few. Our sources of in- 
formation are all English. 

It has been urged that the cotton ])roduction of America, North and South, amounts 
to some 800,000,000 pounds, the result of slave labor, while England is unable to reach 
150,000,000 pounds, in all parts of Iier dominions. The annual production of Ameri- 
can sugar is stated, upon the same authority, to exceed that of England in the propor- 
tion of 10,000,000 to 4.000,000; and it isalledged that a similar disproportion obtains 
with regard toa/Ztropical products. The English press has announced that the annual pro- 
duct of fixed American capital, based upon, or otherwise connected with slave labor, is 
about 220,000,000, while that of England, vested in the production of the staples to vvhicii 
slave labor is applied, in North and South America, does not exceed 50,000,000. It is 
declared, that England cannot look upon such results with indifference, and that she 
must right herself by some means, among which it has been more than intimated the 
subversion of the slavery system of the South was a desideratum. At one time it has 
been urged upon the attention of England, that the advantage enjoyed by America, in 
consequence of the large amount of slave labor, must lead to a corresponding extension 
of commerce, growth of manufactures, with increased national wealth and strength. 
At another, it has been pressed upon the notice of the Northern States, that it is their 
interest to unite with other countries in subverting the exisling system of Southern 
production ! And, apprehensive that the North might have sagacity enough to see, 
that drying up the sources of Southern production must instantly and fatally cripple 
Northern commerce and manufactures, with which those of England would be immedi- 
ately brought in competition, prostrating the North as effectually as the South may be 
ruined, it has been attempted to show, that Northern capital and labor might accom- 
plish, in the South of this country, what the home argument seems to concede is not 
likely to be accomplished in English Southern colonies ! We would not be invidious. 
We are anxious to reason correctly on the subject; but we cannot perceive what con- 
nection there is between such appeals and suggestions, and \.\\q ostensible objects of En- 
glish philanthropy and Northern abolition, respecting Southern slavery. Such a poli- 
cy, if ever adopted and acted upon, will as certainly destroy the elements of our social 
strength and greatness, as that the Union of the States cannot survive it. 

A member of the British Parliament declared, recently, "the greater proportion of 
the people of England demand the immediate emancipation of slaves, in whatever quar- 
ter of the world they may be found." He should have added — "let charity begin at 
home." Another member of Parliament says, "we will turn to America and requir- 
emancipation." It is to be hoped he meant, after freeing the last million of their own 
slaves ! In this way foreign arrogance is reading us homilies on immediate emancipa- 
tion, when even foreign ignorance must have known that all the emancipation we have 
had, in Mexico, Chili, Buenos Ayres, Colombia, St. Domingo, and the West Indies, 
was gradual, not immediate. The slaves of Mexico, so often quoted as an example of 



52 

immfediate abolition, had lo purchase their own freedom by labor, at an ad valorem esti- 
mate, requiring generall}" twelve or fourteen years labor, and in many instances much 
more ; so that myriads of them were only emancipated by death. It is quite unnecessary to 
say, that deeply as the South umy feel interested in the question of prospective emanci- 
pation, nothing will be yielded to intimidation at home, or from abroad. The London 
Athenffium appeals warmly and directly to the North, in favor of "the duty and policy 
of instant abolition." The London Herald, a government paper, says, in anticipation 
of a conflict with the United States, "are Texas and Oregon to become the principal 
military stations of a power which has at its command the Lakes, the St. Lawrence, 
Halifax, Bermuda, most of the West India Islands, and, above all, the terrific war-cry 
of negro emancipation!" The language attributed to the Duke of Richmond, whether 
true or not, as an utterance of his, must be regarded as full of interest, because in ac- 
cordance with so much that is known to be true on the subject to which it refers. "The 
Sovereigns of Europe have determined upon the destruction of the Government of the 
United States, and have come to an understanding upon the subject, and they will event- 
ually succeed by subversion rather than conquest. It is (this country) a receptacle for 
the bad and disaffected population of Europe ; and the European governments favor 
such a course. This will create a surplus, and a majority of low population, who are 
easily excited. All the low and surplus population of the diiTercnt nations of Europe 
will be carried into that country. They will bring with tliem their principles, and, in 
nine cases out of ten, adhere to their ancient and former governments, laws, manners, 
customs, and religion, and will transmit them to their posterity. Discord, disunion, 
anarchy, and civil war \wi\\ ensue, and some popular individual will assume the gov- 
ernment and restore order, and the Sovereigns of Europe, the emigrants, and many of 
the natives will sustain them." We leave facts to speak for themselves on this sub- 
ject, whether in confirmation or correction of such speculations. 

The manner in which our country is almost literally belted by British possessions, 
and surrounded by British influence, is known to every one. Take the range of the 
British West India Islands, from West to East, include the immense territory recently 
acquired of the government of Central America, and by means of which they will al- 
ways be able to command, the Ithmus of Darion, uniting North and South America — 
pass thence to New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, the Canadas, New Britain, 
extending nearly to the Rocky Mountains, and to complete the chain, Oregon is claim- 
ed, from its Northern limit to its nearest approach to the Mexican boundary. In this 
vast region, a scattered population of nearly 100,000 are already subject to British 
law, with an immense military post at the mouth of the Columbia, thus commanding, 
not only the outlet of all our Northern Lakes, but occupying the key of the Pacific, 
with a view of controlling tjje trade of the Sandwich Islands, Java, the Spice Islands, 
China, &c. England is a friendly power, and should, by all means, be treated as such, 
to the extent her conduct will allow. She is, however, a rival, and 7)iai/ become an en- 
emy. And by how far she has manifested a disposition to interfere with the internal 
policy of this country, especially in relation to slavery and commerce, should certainly 
be watched and resisted. The whole press of tiie country, political and religious, has 
been nearly unanimous in declaring the abolition and anti-slavery movement in the 
United States, to be of foreign English origin. The same has been avowed by the 
British and conceded by the abolition press of the United States. Is or is not all this 
sufficient, to place this country upon its guard? Grant that it is the duty, and would 
be wise in the people of the United States, to attempt by fair and constitutional meth- 
ods, to free the country of slavery, why this foreign interference and tampering — why 



53 

this courting and coaxing of foreign countenaace and co-operation, by tlie organized 
anti-slavery associations of this country? What must bethought of American citizens 
who ally themselves with foreign combinations to disturb and agitate the country, and 
on a subject and in a way, necessarily tending to dissolve the union of the States.' One 
English Journal says, "the people of England will never rest until slavery is termina- 
ted in the United States." Another says, "slavery can only be reached through the 
Federal Constitution." Such is the text ; and the comment is a constant effort in Eng- 
land, more or less disguised and respectful, to array the North against the South on 
the subject of slavery, and then in turn the South against the North, in the matter of 
her own free trade propagandism, with which the South is presumed to be in sympathy. 
We would not be ill-natured, but we ask attention to the facts. Again: why a constant 
effort of the English press to exagerate the disabilities and sufferings of the American 
slave, while similar and in many instances, inconceiveably greater oppression and suf- 
fering among British subjects, are kept entirely out of sight? Should not a country so 
long and inveterately in the habit of claiming prerogatives, and exercising rights, not de- 
rived from either God or man, which is known to have expended much more blood and 
treasure, in invading the rights of others, than in defending her own, be a little care- 
ful in the extension of censorship over the morals of other countries'.' A nation whose 
annual custom it has been for ages, to transport thousands into perpetual slavery, in dis- 
tant penal colonies, not merely for crime fropcr, but for offences committed only to 
prevent starvation, and by which no one was injured to the amount of a shilling, such 
as stealing a pheasant or shooting a hare, might afford to be a little more considerate a 
little less officious, in meddling with the defective codes of other countries We are 
willing, never reulctant, to have bared to public gaze, theabuses of vlmerican slavery 
but England ought never to do it without a faithful depiction of the atrocities she knows 
to e.xist, by license of her own government, in different parts of the Empire. For ex- 
ample, when lecturing the United States on the evils and horrors of Southern slavery, 
she should enable us to judge of her impartial clemency, in connection with practices 
not unlike those falsely charged upon the South of the United States ; the historv and 
philosophy of her transportation system ; the elements of her gigantic plan of convict 
civilization; the degradation, the slavery, the exile, the hunger, the toil, the filth, the 
nakedness, the exposure; the bayonet, the hand cuff, the cat o'ninetail, the leo- chain 
the gory scourge, the military guard, the blood clotted triangle, the chain-gan"', the 
iron hearted task master, the night watch, the blood hound, the gallows ; castaway un- 
wholesome food, which has circumnavigated the globe, saline petrefactioiis, called 
meats, and old as Her Majesty at that, devoured in the wooden night box and convict 
cave; British subjects sold by government as slaves to the highest bidder, and bought by 
British christians ; scourgers appointed by law ; the double government cat; government 
licensefor fifty lashes; labor during fifteen hours of the day, with the thermometer not un- 
frequently at 125! And the benignant authors of all this, our reprovers on the subject of 
slavery! I should be ashamed to write the above, were it not thai every phrase in ihe 
fidure, is horroioedfrom British larv and EnijUsh 'witnesses. With no wish to dispar- 
age the virtue and worth of England, a single question explains all we have in view: 
Why are the English meddling only with American slavery, without attending to their 
own kindred and even worse systems of degradation and suffering, found in every divi- 
sion of the Empire, and provoking the remonstrances of the civilized world? Why 
such care for us, and sympathy with the Southern negro, while enslaving and mal-treat- 
ing the negro and other unfortunate portions of mankind elsewhere? Why so reckless 
of the fate of 40,000,000 of slaves in Russia, in connection with the Greek Church? 



54 

Why so unmindful of the slavery of Italy, Austria, Spain, and Portugal, found in the 
bosom of the Papal Church, while laboring so disinterestedly for the purity of the Amer- 
ican Churches, as it regards the evil of slavery? Of a hundred millions of negroes, 
found upon the bosom of our world, no three millions existing together, in any country, 
can be pointed out, enjoying any thing like one half the physical and moral advantages 
enjoyed by the slaves of the Southern States; and why is it so much sympathy is felt 
for the few, thus circumstanced, and so little interest cherisiied in behalf of the remain- 
ing millions, at least in no better, and believed to be in a much worse condition] 

Dr. Durbin, fresh from the great theatre of abolition ethics, and known to be an acute 
observer of men and things, says, "the truth is, that iinder the present working of 
British inslitulions, the mass of the people are slaves, ajid the few are masters, without 
the responsibilities rf masters. The physical condition of the greater part of the slaves in 
the Southern States of A7nerica, is better than that of millions in England and Ireland — 
iheir 7noral and intellectual condition cannot be worse." Plainly, the millions of the 
common mass of England and Ireland, are more truly and miserably slaves, than the 
negroes of our Southern States. Now will it or not, be the "sense"' of the Majority of 
the late General Conference, that the Wesleyan Methodist Preachers, the Buntings, the 
Newtons, the Jacksons, and Dixons, who certainly rank witli the "masters" and not 
with the "slaves," and who "travel at large and oversee the work" Wesley left to be 
superintended by them, shall "desist" from the exercise of their functions, as "over- 
seers of the Church of God," until this "impediment" is removed, and the millions of 
English and Irish slaves are freed, whether they can be or not? And until they do this, 
can they be regarded as any better than poor Bishop Andrew, who was made a slave 
holder without his consent, by the "working" of similar "institutions?" But further, 
for the consideration of our trans-Ailantic friends. It is known to them — to all, that 
large portions of the children of Africa, have existed in a state of slavery for 3,000 
years, and it is equally well known, that unconnected with all other races, one portion 
of the negro race, since the earliest dawn of history, has been enslaved to another, and 
that in greater proportion too, than to any other race. There are ten, perhaps more 
than twenty negro masters in Africa, to every white one in the United States, and own- 
ing ten, if not twenty times as many negroes. And it is also true, that those portions 
of Africa, where the slave trade with the white man is unknown, are the most inveterate 
slave regions. It has been estimated, that something like nine tenths of the whole six- 
ty millions of Africa, are in fact slaves. The English can doubtless account for the 
origin and existence of American slavery, as they are the authors of it, and are now 
battening upon its gains. But liow will they account for the state of things in Africa? 
And why so much zeal in this direction and so little in that? In all the negro islands, 
(many and populous,) of the Indian archipelago, the negro is enslaved to the negro. 
Why tco, are the negroes of this and every other country, St. Domingo and the other 
West India Islands especially, so utterly and proverbially indifTerent to the condition 
of their fellow negroes in slavery? In no instance have they, as a people, made a move 
for the freedom of the negro, or manifested any general solicitude on the subject. 
Does there or not, appear to be some deep and primary reason for such startling results? 
Grant that England and the North can satisfactorily explain the matter, so far as they 
are the authors of American slavery ; still, is there not much beside this, which needs to 
be explained? Why a destiny so untoward, for every portion of the African race, for 
now a term of at least 53,700 years? All our hopes and fears centre in the conviction, 
that whether for good or evil, or it may be a mysterious dispensation of both, the ha7td 
of God must ccnuect witJi such a destiny! 



Similar reasoning applies to the Northern division of our own country. New Eng- 
land capital, combined with the acquisitive ardor and daring enterprise of her hardy 
sons, gave birth to a large proportion of the v.-hole amount of American slavery, as well 
in the South as North. An almost incalculable amount of Northern capital, is at this 
time invested in Southern slaves. The hundreds of Northern men, annually settling 
in the Southern States and Territories, are known promptly and without hesitation, to 
become slave holders ; and the Simon-pursism of Church and State — of Pilgrim and Pu- 
ritan — fresh from the most approved nurseries of abolition zealotry, yields to the sug- 
gestions of convenience and interest, in enlarging and upholding the system of Southern 
slavery. Even temporary residents in the South, from the North, and belonging to 
Northern Churches, become slave holders in instances not a few. Indeed very few of 
the New England and Northern Clergy, taking the range of all denominations, emi- 
grate South, without becoming slave holders, as soon as they find themselves able. And 
a great many, the ov/ners of slaves in the South, sell them there, and return North to 
live, it may be, in ease and affluence, upon the "price of blood," in the parlance of anti- 
slavery ethics. And in this connection, the Northern Methodist Church, and especially 
the Ministry, are entitled to notice. With motive we have nothing to do, except as 
general conduct must be regarded as being its only true exponent. What is had in 
view, therefore, by the ceaseless increasing agitation of the slave question, must be 
judged of by the character and conduct of the agitators, in other respects — particularly 
in relation to vice and the vicious, in other departments of evil and classes of evil- 
doers. In this regard, it is pertinent and important to enquire — are they equally zealous 
and as intolerant in reference to other forms of evil, as in the case of slavery"? Are 
they as intolerant of other forms of slavery as of negro slavery? Is it oppression they 
hate and would destroy — oppression in all its forms and wherever found? Do they seek 
out and relieve the enslaved and oppressed of every relation and condition — the wife, 
defrauded of her rights in a state of hated servitude — the oppressed child, crushed 
beneath the unfeeling brutality of parental despotism — the hired servant, wronged and 
borne down by a tyranny, to which necessity subjects him — the miserable slaves of un- 
protected apprenticeship — the unfortunate debtor and inmate of the poor house, deprived 
of unforfeited rights by the inditFerence and obduracy of public and popular feeling? 
If such be their conduct, we are not at liberty to question their motives as anti-slavery 
reformers for the benefit of the South. But by how far such is not their conduct, we 
impugn their motives, as at least of very doubtful character. When the benefit of the 
slave is sought, by cursing the slave holder, we cannot admit the plea of good motive, 
and must consider hostility to the South as the real cause of the movement. Millions 
in the civilized world are the victims of a legal and social despotism, incomparably 
worse than Southern slavery. They are more ignorant, have less control of their per- 
sons and actions, have less to eat, and food of a worse quality, they are worse clothed — 
they work harder and longer, in every twenty four hours, have less contentment, less 
motive and emulous feeling, and in every respect, are in a state of debasement more 
utterly hopeless than American slaves. And why is it, feeling and sympathy are not 
manifested in their behalf, in a manner corresponding with abolition sympathy for the 
Southern slave? What interest is felt or manifested for the millions in the civilized 
world, now in a stale of vassalage or villenage, two systems of slavery, equal at least 
in evil and injury, to the system of American slavery. Not equally zealous with re- 
gard to other social evils, what must be the inference, as it regards their motives? And 
how as it regards crimcl Take the vices rife and dominant on every side of them. 
Look at the commonness and insolence of impiety, stalking all about them. Bhsphe- 



56 

my, prof:\noness, (Irunkenness, Sabbalh breaking, dishonesty, lying, and defamation ; 
and so of the whole tide of human abomination, rollinrr op before them ; are they equal- 
ly jenlous and exncling, iu their attempts to sn])press these7 And if not, what is the 
inference again'! Is there not a manifest inconsistency, between their clamorous ag- 
gressive movements, as it regards slavery, and their v/ant of zeal and activity in the 
suppression of general popular crime, every v/here surrounding them? If conscience 
and religious principle were the exciting causes, one human interest would not be es- 
poused at the manifest expense and to the great detriment of others. Why this frenzi- 
ed sentimentality — this delerium of opinion and feeling on the subject of slavery; com- 
bined with such invincible Sadducean torpor as to other and worse forms of oppression 
and vice, and especially proverbial indifference to the moral and immortal wants of the 
negro? Notwithstanding the thousands of free negroes within their limits, all the abo- 
litionism, love of the negro, hatred of slavery, all tlie perverted facts, distorted state- 
ments, declamatory defamation, and in some instances honest and able appeals, connect- 
ed with an interminable array of newspaper and pamphlet warfare, conventions, meet- 
ings, lectures, agents, and importation of foreign aid — all these within the wide spread 
territory of the New England, Providence, Maine, Vermont, and Hew Hampshire Con- 
ferences, have not brought a solitary negro into the Methodist Episcopal Church, at 
least to remain there long enough to be reported. So say the ministers of the current 
year. How, why is this? Here is the negro — the free negro in the free and happy 
North. Here too are his own dear friends — his patent benefactors, laboring as above 
for his good, day and night, and even the Sabbath not intermitting the struggle, and yet. 
Heaven favored as he is, in the very Goshen of the moral world, with a superfluity of 
blessing for himself, and the popular curse, piled mountain high upon his oppressor, the 
incorrigible negro is not converted — none of them can be got into the Church — no, not 
one! Turn now to the Troy, Black river, Erie, Oneida, Michigan, Rock river, Gene- 
see, North Ohio, Illinois — nine Conferences ; in all these we have less than a thousand 
negroes in the Church! What does it mean ; how is it to be explained? How does it 
happen, that the free blacks in the non-slave holding States, have been so very limited- 
ly benefitted and influenced by a ministry, so indefatigable in the abuse and denuncia- 
tion of slavery? Is it because the negroes have discernment enough to see, that their 
wordy benefactors have really never done any thing for the good of the negro, soul or 
body — that they do not care for the negro — that they are not the true friends of the ne- 
gro? Why drive a trade with the sympathies of those they find themselves able to ex- 
cite and agitate, but leave the poor negro to turn their abstractions and declamation, to 
what account he can — that is none at all, involving good of any kind? Who of these 
have volunteered to appear in the South, to instruct, console, and cheer the negro, amid 
the hardships of his lot? Addressing the very men of whom we are speaking. Bishop 
Hedding says, "if you feel as much for the slaves as our Southern brethren do — if you 
arc willino- to labor as hard and sufl'er as much for the benefit of the slaves, as those 
brethren do, pn andhdp them ; there is work enough there/or you «//." This noble and 
yet blistering challenge was thrown out by the Bishop seven years ago, but no one of 
these intrepid and devoted reformers of the Church, has appeared in the South for the 
salvation of the negro. They remain at home, and content themselves with fiery ha- 
rangues and blustering paragraplis — revolutionary conventions and seditious reports, 
and we need scarcely add, that sucii cheap displays of humanity and showy exhibitions 
of feelino-, costing nothing but words, can never deceive the negro or tiie friends of the 
necrro in the South. But it may not be amiss to enquire, what has been the real value 
of emancipation to the negro, sny in the I'nitcd States and West Indies, where well un- 



67 

derstood experiments have been made, in due form. Ever since emancipation in St. 
Domingo, the mulattoes and blacks have been in a state of active Iiostile array against 
each other. The British Foreign Quarterly says of the former, "they were ignorant, 
covetous, lazy, proud, vindictive, and cruel, and almost totally destitute of moral feel- 
ing-," of the latter, "they saw the doors of their cage open, and like tigers, slipped out 
to rend and tear." Since their emancipation, the proportion of illegitimate births in 
the Island, has been increased to three in every four. The habitual invincible worth- 
lessness of both races, has continued, with very little variation, ever since they obtain- 
ed their freedom, and may be very justly estimated by the famous Code Rurah, by which 
labor was made compulsory to lessen the amount of theft, robbery, and starvation, in 
this model Republic of emancipated negroes. The same Journal informs us, sustained 
by other authorities, that not only in Hayti, but all the West Indies, even in Jamaica, 
whenever a fire, or any calamity of the kind takes place, the emancipated negroes in- 
variably look on in stupid sullonness, without any attempt at assistance, and frequently 
indeed, the first flash of a conflagration or heave of an earthquake, is the signal for 
plunder. The production of St. Domingo, since the emancipation of the negroes, has 
been reduced as 150 to 15. Thousands of sugar plantations, have been utterly aban- 
doned by the free negroes, because they found the Banana and other spontaneous fruits, 
would keep them from starving whether they worked or not. Professor Wilson, of 
Edinburg, says of England "she has forced upon the West India Islands, the monstrous 
project of negro emancipation — a step which has already reduced to one half, the pro- 
duction of those fine colonies, and given a blovv to the prosperity of both the negro and 
European population, from which neither can ever recover. It soon became manifest 
tliat the negroes would not work." In the Island of Cuba, from 1775 to 1827, fifty two 
years, the increase of the free black population, was only 246, while that of the slave 
population was 547. A similar state of things, has always been presented, in the 
United Slates. Are privation and extreme suffering, favorable to rapidity of increase 
in population? If not, what must be the inference? 

The effects of emancipation and the condition of^ free negroes in the United States, are 
matters too well known to require proof or illustration with the well informed. In 
Massachusetts, only one seventy fourth part of the entire population is African, and 
yet one sixth of all their convicts are negroes. In Connecticut, one thirty fourth are 
negroes, furnishing one third of all the convicts. In New York, one thirty fifth, and 
one fourth of the convicts in the city prisons are free negroes. In New Jersey, one 
tiiirteenth furnishing one third of all the prisoners. In Pennsylvania, one thirty fourth 
and over one tiiird of all the convicts negroes. One fourth of the whole expense con- 
nected with the prison systems of the entire North, is incurred by crime committed by 
one twentieth part of the population. The same is strictly true with regard to the pau- 
per expenditureisof all the Northern States. Facts of this kind can never become so stale 
as not to be startling. We glance at them for a single purpose only ; it is to show that 
amid all the appliances and under the most hopeful influence, of anti-slavery philan- 
throphy, the degradation of the negro continues unchanged, and may be seen in all the 
innumerable forms of indolence, vice, and misery. In Virginia, where no legal barrier 
prevents, in a population of 40,000 free negroes, less than 200 are found to own a sin- 
gle foot of land. And the same is true in about the same proportion, in all the States, 
slave and free. A well informed Northern Clergyman says, "every State seems to 
cherish a disposition to he free from a free black population. In all the walks of life, 
in every society, upon every path which lies before others, to honor, and fiime, and 
glory, a moral incubus pursues and fastens upon them. There appears to exist, in the 
S 



58 

breasts of white men, in this country generally, a prejudice against the color of the 
African, which nothing siiort of Divine power can remove. It is thought by many at 
the North, that immediate emancipation would render it necessary for the whites to ex- 
terminate the blacks, or abandon the Southern soil." — Comer on Slavery. Dr. Fisk 
boldly maintained, throughout the hottest of the abolition contest, in the East and 
North, that either immediate emancipation, or emancipation at all, without removal, 
would be worse than slavery, to all concerned. Dr. Pliillip attempts to account for the 
unmitigated aversion to the color of the African, so universally prevalent in the United 
States, especially in the North, by ascribing it to the injuries, we as a people, have in- 
flicted on that unfortunate race. Our only concern at present is with the fact, showing 
that the negro has no chance to rise or improve in this country. A Northern author, 
in an admirable "Plea for Africa," declares, "the humanity of slave holders in the 
Southern States, has far exceeded the feeling indulged toward the blacks in my native 
New England or the Middle States. A much kindlier feeling is indulged towards the 
blacks at the South than at the North." The whole current of evidence on tlie subject 
tends to show, that the reprobate South is the only section in the United States, where 
any considerable attention is paid to the wants of the negro. Of the free negroes 
of New England, of Connecticut, of New Haven even. Dr. Bacon enquires, "are they 
not, in the estimation of the community, and in their own consciotisness, aliens and out- 
casts, in the midst of the people." Dr. Dana, of the North, says, "there are princi- 
ples of rcpvlsion between them and us, which can 7iever be overcome." The unfortu- 
nate negro may cease to acknowledge a master, but cannot deprive himself of the con- 
sciousness, that he belongs to a degraded class, which as a class can never rise to 
equality with the white race about him. The North has inspired the negro with ex- 
pectations above his condition ; duped him with hopes he can never realize, and dis- 
gusted him with a lot, from which he can never escape, and from which the North has 
done nothing to enable him to escape. 

The city of Baltimore, presents probably the largest and most intelligent mass of 
free persons of color, found in the United States. A large number of them are per- 
sons of reading and reflection. These in an appeal to the citizens of Baltimore, and 
through them to the people of the United States, say, "we reside among you and yet 
are strangers — natives, yet not citizens — surrounded by the freest people and the 
most republican institutions in the world, and yet enjoying none of the immunities of 
freedom. Difference of color, the servitude of most of our brethren, &c. will not allow 
us to mingle with you in the benefits of citizenship. As long as we remain among you. 
we shall be a distinct caste — an extraneous mass of men irrecoverably excluded from 
your institutions. Though we are not slaves, we are not free. We do not and never 
shall participate in the enviable privileges which we constantly witness." Judge Black- 
ford says, "they are of no service here, (free States,) to the community or themselves. 
They live in a country the favorite abode of liberty, without the enjoyment of her 
rights. To all these the black man is a stranger." "Here the features, the complex- 
ion, and every peculiarity of his person pronounce upon the ransomed slave another 
doom." — C. on Slaverij. "If liberated and left among the whites, they would be a 
constant source of annoyance, corruption, and danger. They could never be trusted as 
faithful citizens. Each would regard tiie other with painful suspicion and apprelien- 
nion. It is essential to the interests of each, that they be sepnratcd." — Dr. Miller. 
"The romcval of the folored populnticn is, I tliink, a common object, by no means con- 
fined to the slave States ; the whole Union would be strengthened by it, and relieved from 
a danger whose extent can scarcely be estimated." — Chief Justice Marshall. "A polit- 



59 

ical evil which we have inherited — a stain to be washed from the national escutcheon." — 
Gov. Vronm. "Ourselves, our children, our land, and every beloved institution of our 
country, are deeply involved" — Bishop Meade. "The free black whom prejudice con- 
signs to a moral debasement in the North, is as deeply injured as the slave who, in the 
South, is hold in physical bondage. The mass of crime committed by Africans is 
greater in proportion to numbers in the non-slave holding than in the slave holding 
States, and as a general rule, the degree of comfort enjoyed by them is inferior. They 
are destined to be forever proscribed and debased by our prejudices." — B. F. Butler. 
"The breath of opinion poisons all their efforts. They feel it is impossible to contend 
with the whites. They call more loudly for our sympathy than their brethren in bon- 
dage." — Rev. Mr. Beslor. 

Tliat part of the Protest which shows the whole Church, North as well as South, to 
be plainly and unavoidably connected with slavery, is not noticed by the Reply at all, 
although a great portion of its reasoning turns upon this point entirely. The boast of 
the North, generally, of freedom from slavery, is equally fallacious. Where are the 
descendants of the tliousands of slaves sold by the progenitors of Northern abolition- 
ists in the Southern States and West Indies? Sold and deeded by them into perpetual 
captivity, how is the slave trading North to get rid of the evil? What are these aboli- 
tionists doing with the "price of blood" thus left them by their sainted sires? In work- 
ing out their freedom from slavery, what of the poor Pequod Indians enslaved by them 
at home, and shipped in large numbers to the Bermudas, and there sold into intermina- 
ble slavery? Who owns, and is consuming the millions in the North, acquired by ac- 
tual, regular, and protracted merchandise, in the souls and bodies of men, connected 
with the slave trade between the periods of 1650 and 1845? How are the children of 
a slave holding and slave trading ancestry, who have consigned thousands to perpetual 
servitude, from mere motives of gain, to rid themselves of ihe moral relations and ef- 
fects of slavery? How many now engaged in spreading the evangelism of anti-slave- 
ry, have resided South, owned slaves, not by inheritance or in right of marriage, but by 
purchase, have bought low and sold high, and returning to the North, are now living on 
the proceeds of slavery, and weekly contributing, in their own patent phrase, the 
"price of blood" in the diffusion of abolition abuse? Dr. Dana says, "let us not ima- 
gine, for a moment, that we, in this Northern clime, are exempt from that enormous 
guilt connected with slavery and the slave trade which we are so ready to appropriate 
to our brethren in distant States. In New England are the forges which have framed 
fetters and manacles for the limbs of unoffending Africans. The iron of New Eng- 
land has pierced their anguished souls. In New England are found the overgrown 
fortunes — the proud palaces, which have been reared up from the blood and sufferings 
of these unhappy men. The guilt is strictly national — national then, let the expiation 
be. Let the whole country confess its guilt." New England and foreign slave mer- 
chants filled the South with slaves, aided by the sanction and participation of the Bri- 
tish government. The oppressor's gold has enriched the North as well as the South. 
The truth of history speaks in the lines of Mrs. Sigourney — "The frown of deep in- 
dignant blame bends not on Soiithern climes alone. To dark slavery's yoke severe, our 
father's helped to bow the neck." If the whole matter in question be fully and fairly 
examined, the North may find itself as deep in debt to the justice of God, as even the 
South ; and as it regards the slave trade, infinitely more so. How many more or less 
than a score of Northern vessels, with men and capital in necessary proportion, are at 
this moment engaged in the slave trade between Africa and the Brazilian ports alone? 
Who is ignorant of the amount of Northern capital engaged in the slave trade with the 



60 

Island of Cuba, after the opening of the port of Havana to foreign slave vessels, in 
1789, and still further in 1791? Immense portions of the wealth of the North have 
been acquired by means of slavery and the slave trade; and slavery, in the light of 
means connected with the end, is now interwoven with the whole civil and social econo- 
my of Northern society. It cleaves to the soil, the homesteads, the churches, the grave- 
yards, liie colleges, the schools, the political economy, and religious enterprise of the land. 
The real difference between the North and tlie South appears to be, the one holds the 
slave, and the other the price of ti)e slave. The one has the power to obey the com- 
mand of God, respecting the slave, and is, of course, responsible for the use of it. 
The other bartered the slave and the responsibility together, for gold, and by way of 
educing good from "evil," secured a preferred equivalent for the one and tlie other. 

The Southern portion of the Church, having any connection at all, are connected with 
slavery under the high and direct sanction of law; and how will it be made appear that 
such connection is criminal, while a multiform connection with slavery is found in the 
North, in direct violation of tiio constitution and laws of the United States, in some if 
not all of its aspects, and yet not criminal! Slaves, recognized as property, by express 
provision of the supreme law of the land, are, in instances almost innumerable, decoy- 
ed or stolen from their owners, secreted, protected, and aided in effecting their escape, 
although after being thus stolen or decoyed off, they are as really and truly slaves, and 
the property of others, as though nothing of the kind had occurred. Wherever they 
are found, in Northern States, they belong, by right of law, and the pledged consent of 
every citizen of the United States, to those from whom they have been stolen, or in- 
duced to escape, and no lengtii of residence. North, affects the title of the owner. In 
this way, all engaged in this species of abolition, or in any way furthering or approving 
it, have a direct connection witli slaves and slaveiy, in open violation of law ; that is, 
they take, or otherwise aid, in depriving the owner of his property, without his knowl- 
edge or consent, and thus, in defiance of law, connect themselves with slavery by 
means of theft and robbery. We should like to know how this class of "men-steal- 
ers," (such by the constitution and laws of the country,) can escape the charge of con- 
nection with slavery, or how they expect to dissolve such connection ! Entailed upon 
the South by means of British policy and Northern commercial enterprise, how does it 
happen that the curse of slavery is to be borne by the South alone? What baptism has 
washed the stains of the original lepers? By what vicarious arrangement have their 
sins been fastened upon the South, as the scape-goat by which they are to be borne 
away? How many Northern Methodist Preachers were ordained by Bishop Coke, du- 
rino' his connection with slavery in the West Indies, between 1788 and 1792, and how 
has the Northern Church got rid of the evil llnis entailed upon them? All the superior 
Councils of the Church, since 1780, have consi:»ted, in part, of slave holders, and al- 
ways found in many of the Annual Conferences; slavery has been mixed up with all 
the federal relations of the Church for 05 years, and how is the Church to rid itself of 
this taint? The evil in the South has its warrant in the law of its production ; in 
causes over which we had no control, and with tlie existence and operation of which, 
those who now abuse us most, English and Northern abolitionists, are more intimate- 
ly connected than all the world beside. The North is a stockholder in the slave trade 
as truly as the South, and can never cease to be one, until U\g gains, by means of it, 
in all the successive accumulations of principal and interest shall, to the last cent, be 
expended in efforts to remove the evil they have inflicted on this country, on Africa, 
the countries of South America, the Islands of the West Indian Archipelago, and 
other portious of the globe. 



61 

We have seen that slavery is, to all intents and purposes, a national arrangement. 
The wl ole nation was originally concerned in its introduction and prevalence among 
us. The whole niition consented to its legal perpetuation, hy its formal recognition in 
the Constitution of the United States. It could only become national, in the Union of 
the States, by consent and contract of the North. All statesmen and jurists treat it 
as a national concern. A Northern reviewer snys, "the evil is ours as well as theirs; 
we are ready to appropriate it all to our Southern brethren, but we have no power or 
right thus to wash our hands. From the North have gone ships, and seamen, and tra- 
ders in human flesh, that have been polluted by the inliuman traffic, and the 'pieces of 
silver' gained by them have been apportioned to the North: the North have shared 
largely in the accursed spoils." Is tl;e North ready to consecrate these gains to the 
removal of the evil? Until this is done, if no longer, the North remains, of necessi- 
ty, connected with the evil, as they have merely excininged the slave for his value in 
the shape of other capital. Suppose too, the North were called upon, as the means of 
atoning for the evils inflicted upon the nation, by the importation of intoxicating li- 
quors, and other demoralizing means of gain, during the last two hundred years, to 
sacrifice the amount of property now connected with the slave system of the South, 
say 800,000,000 of dollars, which they require the South to yield, and be thankful that 
tl)ey are let off so lightly ! What requirement of God or man would secure such an 
alienation of property on the part of those who exact it of the South, in propitiation of 
Northern displeasure, on account of the evil of slavery] If not prepared for anything 
of the kind, may they not learn a lesson of forbearance toward the South, especially 
as they contributed so largely toward the establishment of the property system of the 
South'? How will it be sliown that it is either honest or honorable in the North, while 
enjoying the advantages of the national compact, to demand back the price they were 
once so gbd to pay for it? In what sense slavery is national, and in what provincial 
only, has been shown with sufficient clearness in this discussion. And as slavery, 
within specified limitations, is a principle of public policy, those who assail it as an 
outrage, can only do so by assailing the civil compact uniting the several States of the 
confederacy. Or, turning to the provincial aspects of the question, they give their 
local views and policy an extra-territorial application, contrary to, and in violation of 
Ihe federal treaty rights of American citizenship; and in doing so, must, of necessity, 
act in bad faith. We are glad to know that thousands in the North, opposed to slave- 
ry, are not disposed to disturb the South by any agitation of the subject ; and by how 
far they discountenance agitation in this, or any other way, the South will accord to 
them the justice and generosity to which their conduct entitles them. Nor can we 
perceive what damage or disreputation would accrue to the Scribes and Pharisees of 
abolition and anti-slavery, were they to take a lesson from the conduct of this portion 
of their fellow citizens, and especially from that of Christ and his Apostles on this 
subject. 

In the application of this reasoning, Methodism is no exception to the general rule. 
The impurity, the hated leprosy is spread all over the North by the constitution and 
laws, and by consequence, stipulated consent and established usages of the Church. 
The action of the last General Conference, if carried out, will prove but an anodyne, 
not a remedy. Much else will remain to be dune. Pragmatic pertinacity in excluding 
slavery from the Episcopacy, say the Executive Department, while it is allowed to re- 
main in the General and Annual Conferences— the Legislative and Judicial Departments 
of the Church, deemed by the majority of so much more importance— will always ap- 
pear to the impartial and well-informed, as ridiculous as it is absurd and inconsistent. 



62 

Who can help being struck with the contrast between the conduct of Prophets and 
Apostles, in relation to the evil of slavery, and the course pursued by the Northern 
abolition and anti-slavery party or parties of the Methodist Episcopal Church? Slave- 
ry, perpetual hereditary slavery, existed in the Jewish, and also in the Christian Church, 
and slaves and masters, under Divine direction and influence, constituted portions of 
both, and in both, at different times and in various ways, God himself interposed and 
legislated for the regulation of the evil — for such it seems to us it must have been re- 
garded, and might have been, without affecting our reasoning. All this was true and 
yet no directions given — no movement authorized or indicated, towards its overthrow. 
It was directly connected with, and was a part of the civil polity, in both instances. 
In the one it was expressly authorized, and in the other distinctly recognized, as a civil 
and domestic arrangement, giving birth to important social and moral obligations, and 
while its abuses are denounced, no attempt was made to interfere with it, as a concera 
of State. During the personal ministrations of Jesus Christ and his Apostles, the 
whole Eastern world was full of slavery, in ils worst forms — in forms confessedly 
worse than any in the United States, and comprehending, it has been estimated, one 
entire half of the population of the East ; and yet inspiration is silent, except in the 
specification and enforcement of the relative duties of master and slave, without one 
word in condemnation of the relation out of which the duties arise. Must not St. Paul 
and his associates have been familiar with the "Ergastula tota'^ of Juvenal — entire 
work houses crowded with slaves, and dotting nearly every road side of Greece and 
Rome] Were they ignorant of the fact, that slavery, even negro slavery, had existed 
in the countries and colonies of Greece for ages before the christian era? Were they 
strangers to the fact, that ihe Roman Empire was full of slavery? Had the slave mar- 
kets of ihe Imperial and Provincial capitols, never attracted their attention? Did they 
not know that the mines of the Empire alone, for a series of ages, occupied upon an 
average, annually, some 50,000 slaves? Were the facts attested by Seneca, Pliny, Strabo, 
and others, that many Roman citizens owned whole legions of slaves, unknown to theml 
And yet we have seen, and shall further see, what their example was, and how little it 
resembled the conduct of which we complain? Every word on the subject from either, 
vindicates the idea and the fact, that slavery is a civil relation, with which Christianity 
does not meddle, and as such is not to be interfered with on the part of the Church. 
From Moses to Christ, slavery, perpetual slavery for life, existed in the Church, even 
in connection with the Priesthood in all its grades, and God, equal and infinite in wisdom 
and goodness, specified, explained, and enforced its relations. Not only did the He- 
brews hold slaves, by Divine permission, but by the same warrant, they were permitted 
to transmit them to their children, as hereditary property. There is no prohibition of 
slavery during the Old Testament history, nor is the relation of master and slave any 
where charged as a social or moral wrong. In the Jewish polity, it is not merely tole- 
rated, but as the prevailing custom of the early Eastern nations, which God did not see 
proper to deny to the Jewish nation, it was retained and adopted as one of the institutes 
of a polity, established and published by Himself, as sole legislator. And this is not 
merely conceded, but currently assumed and asserted, by the whole stream both of Jew- 
ish and Christian comr.:entary. Nor are Methodist commentators any exception to the 
rule. It is admitted and taught by all our standard expositors, not excepting Dr. 
Coke, who in his commentary, whatever he may say elsewhere, admits that slavery by 
Divine warrant, was made a part of the political constitution of the Jewish Common- 
wealth. Ignorance alone will deny, that slavery pervaded the whole Eastern world, at 
the introduction of Christianity, and yet the legislation of the New Testament, no where 



63 

condems the relation or the system, but is limited to conservative regulations, designed 
to prevent abuse, and inculcate duty, in relation to all connected with the system, 
whetlier as masters or slaves. Non-resistance to the law of servitude as a civil ar- 
rangement, submission and fidelity on the part of slaves, are exacted as matter of 
christian duty, and for the emphatic reason "that the name of Gud and his doctrine be 
not blasphemed," as by those, who teach tlie right of resistance and non-submission, in 
the premises. The same duty is urged, in view of the solemn motive, that the slave 
may "adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour," a part of the "doctrine of God our Sa- 
viour," being, that as the master owes protection, support, and kindness to the slave, 
as such, so the slave owes obedience and all fidelity to the master, in his character of 
master. A still more explicit reason, assigned in the New Testament, is, that such 
obedience, so performed by the slave, is necessary to the Divine approval, as matter of 
plain duty, growing out, of the civil condition of the slave. Every critical student of 
the New Testament, is well aware that there is not in it a single sentence, nor any 
series of them, from which induction can logically deduce the inference, that the sim- 
ple owning or holding of slaves, is inconsistent with the word of God, or christian 
character. How is it then, that so many have become "wise above what is written," 
and are so far in advance of the revelations of infinite wisdom, on this subject, as to 
represent slavery under any circumstances, as one of those monster vices — a Giant 
abomination, which (according to some,) Christianity has refused to pollute her lips 
with, and has left to be destroyed by extra-scriptural efforts, or if such be not the po- 
sition, (according to others,) then let us have the warrant from the word of God, un- 
der which they presume to act. Difference of opinion and feeling on the subject, we 
do not complain of — this is to be expected, but when it comes to cursing and outlawry 
from the pale of all the virtues, then those who so treat us, must produce Divine war- 
rant for what they do, or stand exposed to the charge of arraigning the wisdom and the 
word of God. By a denunciation of slavery as the sin of sins, the disciple charges the 
Master with infidelity to His commission, for by a most unaccountable oversight, the 
great Teacher, and the inspired expositors of his declared will, failed to intimate, that 
it was a sin at all. Those we oppose in this argument, make the christian profession 
a reason for dissolving the relation of master and slave, contrary to the unequivocal 
teaching of the New Testament, which enjoins the duty of greater fidelity on the part 
of the christian slave, because tiie master is a christian too, and they brethren in Christ, 
and in this way our opponents deface rather than adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour. 
The New Testament teaches tiiat this doctrine is adorned, when the slave renders a 
ready and cheerful obedience, in view of his relations as a slave ; modern menders of 
the Divine message teach, that it is best done by disobedience, theft, robbery, running 
away, or placing themselves in a position to be stolen by their benefactors. The New 
Testament enjoins obedience upon the slave, from motives of honesty and uprightness, 
lejt the name of God and his doctrine be blasphemed ; the reformers in question, how- 
ever, blaspheme both the name of God and his doctrine, by inculcating directly the con- 
trary course of conduct. The New Testament requires that kind of obedience which 
counts "the master worthy of all honor" — that is, in the relation of master. It directs 
the slave not to be careful about his servitude — "care not for it," although freedom is 
to be preferred, when it is offered by rightful authority. It also teaches the slave to 
render service to his master "as unto Christ" — "not to steal but to show all good fidel- 
ity" — ?,nd finally, most solemnly requires all ministers of Jesus Christ, "to teach and 
command these things,'''' and assures the Church and the world, that those ministers who 
fail or refuse to do it, "do not consent to wholesome words, even the u'ords of the Lord 



64 

Jesits, hat fire proud knowing notliing — doting about questions and strifes of words-^ 
whereof cometli envy, evil surmisings, perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, 
destitute of the truth, from such withdraw." Here is a picture too fearfully attractive 
not to be noticed. A picture drawn by omnicient discernment, and every word of it 
originally applied to the subject of slavery and abolition. We are not ignorant of the 
extent to which sneer and banter have been appealed to, to deter all concerned from any 
thing like a scriptural examination of the subject. Tiiose who resort to such a course, 
doubtless perceive, that whatever warrant they may have for their conduct from other 
sources, they have none from the word of God. They no doubt feel, that they are 
teaching Prophets and Apostles instead of learning from them! The Church that claims 
authority to excommunicate, or in any way punish or disparage the claims of a man 
merely because standing in the relation of master or owner to a slave, treats the lan- 
guage and analogy of the Bible on this subject as obsolete, fjr in the Scriptures of both 
the Old and the New Testament, the relation is recognized as existing in the Church, 
every way and essentially distinct from that of hired or indented service, and in a way 
further, showing the relation to be allowable by Divine permission. God informed his 
people, under the old dispensation, that they might hold slaves either for a term of 
years, or for life, as a "perpetual possession" and "inheritance" for their children. 
The permission is expressly given in various forms. Under the new dispensation, He 
has not only f\tiled to say they shall not do so, but proceeding upon the fact that they 
did, and the assumption that they would. He simply instructs them, how to treat their 
slaves, and explains to them the kind nf service they may reasonably expect from them. 
The cruel, unjust, and even unkind master, should be disowned by the Church, as also 
the faithless slave. The humane and considerate master and the faithful slave, liave as 
good a right, according to the Jewish and Christian Scriptures, to membership in the 
Church of God, other tilings being equal, as any class of mankind whatever. The 
practice of the Church for more than thirty centuries, has been in accordance with this 
statement. Biblical scholars need not be told, that in the Hebrew and Greek of the 
Old and New Testaments, terms denoting the s/ai'fi fro/»er, by general consent of all 
commentary and criticism, and clearly beyond doubt distinguishing the slave from the 
hired or any other kind of servant — thus forming two separate and well defined states 
of servitude, are used several hundred times, and frequently in direct contrast in the 
same sentence, and that in both langnagcs, and both divisions of the Bible, they are 
distinguished and kept separate, by the use of different terms, without any confusion 
of meaning or application. They need not be told, that in the New Testament as in 
the old, the one relation is recognized as existing in tlie Church, as well as the other, 
and that there is no prohibition of the one any more than of tiie other. Tlie distinction 
between ruler and subject, parent and child, husband and wfe, is not more distinctly main- 
tained by the use of different terms, than that between the slave proper and the hired ser- 
vant oT the Scripiures. If this be not so, let the contrary be shown. Let it be made appear, 
that the ^^Eved" and ^^Saukeer", (slave and hired servant,) of the Hebrew Scriptures — 
the '•'Douhus" and *^ Misthotos," (.v^rneand hireling) of the Greek of the Septuagint and 
the New Testament, with their almost innumerable compounds and formations, as well 
as other kindred terms, with their compounds and derivatives, used to denote the same 
contrasted relations — let it bo shown, that all these, so used in several hundred places, 
do not mean the opposite civ i] and domestic relations of slavery and freedom — of compul- 
sory and voluntary service. But if not, and the Bible is found teeming with such evi 
deuces and distinctions witli regard to slavery, wliiie the very Decalogue re::ognizes the 
relation, and it is re-published in the sermon on the mount, let it be admitted that th9 



65 

evil of slavery is to be judged of in view of other tests than its condemnation in the 
Bible. Were the Bible silent on the subject, the case would be very different. Other 
means of judgment would, of necessity, have to bo appealed to. But the Bible is not 
silent. Heaven has legislated on the subject, and beyond that legislation no man or 
Church can go, without a departure from the word of God. The Methodists have 
avowed the belief to Heaven and earth, that what is not taught in the Bible, cannot be 
made a condition of salvation, and by consequence cannot be essential to christian 
character or ministerial qualification. Let the Bible then, come in as a witness on this 
subject, and let its decision be conclusive of the controversy. This must have been 
the design of Heaven, or the subject would not have been introduced there. We may 
fight and divide, and fight after division, until weary and wasted, and it must come to 
this at last. Slavery as a question of moraUty, can only be settled hy an appeal to the 
revealed icill of God. Here, and on this ground, must the decisive battle be fought. 
Let this then be the issue. The Divine will being revealed on the subject, in the Scrip- 
tures, ichat is ilJ If we misunderstand the great register of our faith, let us see our 
wrong. If we lack information, enlighten us. If by fair exegetical argument, the 
contrary of what we assume can be shown, we pledge ourselves to submit. But should 
it appear that the Bible recognizes the jural and social relation of master and slave, as 
a concern of civil government, with which the Church has no right to interfere, beyond 
the inculcation of duty and the correction of abuses incident to the relation, then we 
are compelled to maintain, that those who denounce the relation itself, as criminal and 
inconsistent with christian character, "teach for doctrine the commandments of men, 
and pervert the oracles of God." We repeat, here is the tru3 issue, and let it be met. 
The early attempts of the Church, or portions of it, to interfere, so as to disturb the 
civil and domestic relations between master and slave, are directly condemned by near- 
ly all the principal early and later fathers. Ignatius, Chrysostom, and Jerome especial- 
ly, denounce the practice as unchristian. Ignatius says, "despise not tlie slaves, neitlier 
suffer them to be puffed up, but to the glory of God let them serve with greater dili- 
gence, that they may obtain of God a belter liberty. Let them not desire that their 
liberty be purchased by the Church, lest they fall under the slavery of their passions." 
And accordingly it was decreed, by one of the ancient councils of the Church — "if any 
teach, that by virtue of religion or christian instruction, that the slave may despise his 
master, or may withhold his service, or that he shall not serve his master with good 
faith and reverence, let him he anathema" Such views of the subject are not offered 
to show that slavery is not an evil, but to show that it is not, (unless the relation be 
abused to criminal and unworthy purposes,) evil in the sense and to the extent assum- 
ed by a large portion, perhaps the majority of the Methodist Episcopal Church. Where 
slavery obtains, without being a civil regulation of the State, without the sanction of 
public laic, as was the case in Massachusetts, from its introduction until put down by 
the Judiciary, our reasoning does not, and is not intended to apply. If evil be applied 
to slavery in the Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church, in the sense in which 
it is applied to drunkenness, prof^ineness, &c., as contended by some of our General 
Conference organs, then the Church has deliberately connived at vice and ungodliness, 
in both the ministry and membership, for the last half century and more, and must be 
looked upon as not less guilty and degraded, than she would have been, had she allow- 
ed her ministers and members to be drunkards, swearers, and Sabbath breakers. If 
this be so, the Church has been dishonest and unprincipled, in every period of her his- 
tory, and those holding such an opinion, to be consistent, can only award her the curse 
of Heaven, and the scorn of Christendom. The term evil, however, in the Discipline, 
9 



66 

is used in no such sense. Such a construction would not only prove the Methodist 
Church unworthy of confidence, but the great head of the Church general, Prophets and 
Apostles, the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, the principal fatiiers and 
writers of the Church, since the days of inspiration, would be equally included in the 
condeiination ; for we have seen that all these have steadily and formally recognized 
the state and relations of slavery, even perpetual hereditary slavery, and have specifi- 
cally legislated and given direction, not for its overthrow, but for the regulation of the 
duties and obligations arising out of sucli state and relations. Taking the slavery of 
the United States, and certainly we have proved it to be such, as a long established civil 
regulation of jural origin, interwoven with all the successive formsof government, and 
the very structureof society, unless it can be shown to be inconsistent with the word 
of God, and so forbidden to the christian, we maintain that any authoritative inter- 
ference with the relation by the Church, is a usurpation of right that ought to be resist- 
ed. We have seen at length and undeniably, that the judgment of our chief pastors, 
the Bishops, as given at difi^erent times, and fully sustained by repeated and formal de- 
clarations of the General Conference, directly rejects the supposition that the relation 
in itself is disallowed by the word of God, and therefore sinful. All the Bishops joint- 
ly, Bishop Hedding, Dr. Bangs, two successive General Conferences, and other author- 
ities, have been adduced to show that since the early abolition of the Methodists in the 
United States, this has never been the doctrine of the Church. In matters of con- 
science she has, by her own official avowal, no right to legislate, except what she de- 
rives from the Bible. — See Vr. Emorifs report in 1828. Whence her rigiit then to de- 
nounce as morally wrong, a civil relation, recognized and tolerated in the Jewish and 
Christian Scriptures'? The recent General Conference declared the slavery question to 
be one of conscience, and as the subject is discussed in the Bible, which we receive as 
"the only and sufficient rule of faith and practice," we ask for the warrant of the Ma- 
jority in taking the stand they have on this subject. One of two things we claim, in 
the abused name of God and his word: — either furnish the warrant we call for or treat 
us on this subject as we are treated by the Bible and its author. We do not mean to 
say that the Bible favors slavery, or that slavery is not an evil ; what we insist upon 
is, that the Bible treats it as a jural arrangement in human governments, which the 
Church has no right to assail or disturb, beyond proper efforts to bring master and 
slave into the fold of Christ, and urge upon both the faithful performance of their rela. 
tivc duties, that in this way, principle and conviction may operate their appropriate re- 
sults. This was God's ancient method in the Patriarchal and Jewish ages, and that of 
Christ and his Apostles under the new dispensation, and vve insist it will be found to 
be the only efficient means for the e>:tirpation of the evil. Beyond this the Bible is 
neither for nor cr^a/nsi slavery. There is no jJro-slavery — no anti-slavery in it. The 
relation is recognized and its duties clearly pointed out, and at the same time all abuse 
of the relation is denounced as sin and punished accordingly. Whatever the zeal and 
fanaticism of modern enlightenment may decree or .say, no other method of treatment 
is found ill the Bible or authorized by its ethics. Having in various forms brought the 
subject to the notice of the Churr'j, as requiring his interpo.«iiion, why is God not per- 
mitted to express his own will, and explain his own law and purposes'? Sacredly pled^:- 
ed to abid'j by these, as found in the Scriptures, have or have not the high engagements 
of the Church been broken in connection with the facts brought to notice in this Re- 
view? How tiic legislation of the Church has been treated, wo have seen in extenso. 
Can further proof be needed to show that civil law has been declared, in effect, null and 
void, in its assertion of iho rights of citizenship? In the case of Bishop Andrew, for 



example, his personal rights as a citizen of Georgia, are legislated away by the sum- , 
mary process of resolution. With no law of the Church to authorize it, as themselves 
admit, the Majority place the character and conscience of Bishop Andrew in the i<eep- 
ing of a party jurisdiction, extra-territorial with regard to the entire South ; and this 
too, although every citizen of the United States, as we have seen, is as much bound to 
protect the right in question, as any other guarantied by the constitution. Indeed, or- 
ganized as the States are, under the federal compact, ihe whole anti-slavery movement 
is an aggressive interference with the civil arrangements of tlie country. It is a poli- 
tical trespass, and so far as the Church is involved, it is such ostensibly for religious 
purposes, and must come under the condemnation of the late Ohio Conference, in its 
denunciation of "politico-religious" movements of whatever kind, for certainly the one 
before us is of this character, with all the vengeance of ampleproof and illustration. 

The Protest assumes, that the constitution of the Methodist Episcopal Church has 
been violated in the proceedings against Bishop Andrew, and it will at least be necessa- 
ry to show what was meant by the assumption. We reject, and always have, as absurd 
and utterly untenable, the position, that the "restrictive articles" are the constitution 
of the Church, in any allowable sense. The very proposition appended to the articles, 
is sufficient without any thing else, to overthrow the pretension. Very little discern- 
ment is necessary, to see at once, that no government is established by these articles ; 
they do not pretend to establish one, and of course, of necessity, cannot be a consti- 
tution, for all admit that a constitution is that which establishes and constitutes a gov- 
ernment. That is intended, and those things especially included, without which the 
government could not exist, and every one perceives that such views do not and cannot 
apply to the restrictive articles. These articles do not create, nor do they constitute the 
government, and therefore cannot be the constitution. They do not, nor can they be 
made, even constructively, to include the fundamental principles of the government. 
There are other principles of government not found in them, and to which they do not 
allude, equally elementary, equally essential to the very existence of the government. 
A constitution, further, means ihe form in which the governivg fower \s i^xcxcisQ^. 
Such form, however, is not found in the restrictions, except in part, and as all know, to 
a very limited extent. The restrictive articles are a part of the constitution of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, and a small part only. They were not originally inten- 
ded or thought of as the constitution of the Church, although undoubtedly designed to 
be of constitutional force, and such force we distinctly claim for them. They are prop- 
erly an amendment or addition to the constitution, adopted and engrafted upon it, long 
after the Church had a constitution as truly and properly as now. While, therefore, 
the restrictive articles are a part of the constitution, they are not the constitution proper, 
any more than any other important section of the Discipline. As technically under- 
stood and applied, in the political jurisprudence of the United States, the Methodist 
Episcopal Church is without a constitution. We have a constitution, however, as cer- 
tainly as the United Stales have, resembling, it is true, the English constitution in 
its origin and structure, much more than that of our own counlry, consisting mainly, 
as does the British constitution, of declaratory acts, statutes, rules, and regulations, 
together with construction, precedent, and usage, as the means of compact, union, and 
action, and thus forming a body of law, which is in fact our only constitution. In a 
word, our only constitution is our book of statutes, rules, and regulations— the Discip- 
line of the Church. All these, essential either to the existence of the government or 
to secure the ends of its institution, are of constitutional force and validity, and by 
consequence parts of the constitution. The Itinerancy is confessedly more essential tu 



6S 

the existence and government of the Methodist Episcopal Church, than any other prin- 
ciple or arrangement belonging to it, and yet the restrictive articles do not allude to it, 
except as it regards Bishops alone. The forms of ordination, as it relates to three or- 
ders or grades of the ministry, originally received from Wesley, as not only valid and 
sufficient, but always regarded as essential to the very existence of ihe ministry, and 
of course the Church, niust be considered as a constitutional arrangement, and an un- 
doubted part of the constitution ; yet these are not secured in the restrictions, except by 
implication perliaps, in the case of Bishops. Class meetings too, although not of Divine 
obligation, connect with a vitally constitutional principle in the government, as with 
these originates the ministry, and without them, with our present form of government, 
we could have no ministry of any kind. The class meeting system, therefore, is a con- 
stitutional arrangement, beyond doubt, although not covered by the restrictive rules. 
The Annual Conference system, without which the whole machinery of Methodism, 
would become extinct, will always be looked upon as a fundamental element of the very 
structure of our government, and yet it is not protected by the restrictive articles. The 
same is true of the Quarterly Meeting system, apart from which our whole executive 
administration would be something entirely different from what it is, and it can, there- 
fore, be regarded in no other light than as a part of the constitution, and yet the restric- 
tions imposed upon the delegated General Conference, have no reference to this any 
more than to the other great constitutional arrangements to which we have called atten- 
tion. The General Conference also comes in ,.'ith its powers and limitations, as a 
constitutional arrangement, but the restrictions upon it are no more the constitution, 
than any one of the constitutional powers or arrangements we have enumerated in the 
general system. 

The General Conference v.'as created and established by the Annual Conferences, 
(with the consent and rpproval o^ I'-ie Episcopacy,) as the organ of their action, joint- 
ly and in common. Not transconding the limits of its powers, its action is, of course, 
constitutional and binding; but exceeding these limits, its action is at once unconsti- 
tutional, not binding, and ought to be resisted. Attempting the exercise of power 
not delegated, it ceases to be the organ of the Annual Conferences, is from under the 
protection of the constitution, and loses all right of control. All the powers of the 
General Conference originated, pre-existed, and were exercised before the existence of 
the General Conference, and are, in no primary sense, traceable to it. Episcopacy 
too, with all its present powers, had long existed and operated its functions, as now, 
before General Conferences were thought of. The Episcopacy is not of General 
Conference origin, in any sense. All the General Conferences, from 1792 to 1844, 
could not have given it the character clnimed for it, by our principal writers on the 
subject. It had full and effective existence, and constitutional force and validity, be- 
fore the General Conference, which now assumes to have created it, had any existence 
at all. It preceded even the Eldership. It was the Episcopacy and Eldership in con- 
junction, as a constituent body, thai created the General Conference, and imposed up- 
on it the restrictive rules, now forming a part, and but a very small part, of the consti- 
tution. These are, in no sense, self-imposed restrictions, as absurdly supposed by 
some. They wore imposed by those giving birth and power to tiie delegated General 
Conference, and without whose authority it could not have been. Tiie Episcopal office 
was created, and Dr. Coke officially placed in its incumbency, by the only authority 
having any right to act, before any Church existed in the United States. In the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church, tiie Bishop was the first grade of the ministry adopted. There 
was no Elder— no Deacon. The Laity had nothing to do with it. They had merely, 



69 

throngh their Lay Preachers, petitioned Mr. Wesley for Elders and Deacons. The 
Episcopacy was the first formative element or principle in tiie organization of the 
Church. It was the primal arrangement, around which all others clustered and settled 
into order and symmetry. It was by an authority antecedent and superior to the Gene- 
ral Conference, that the Bishop was created President, and head of that body, which he 
could not be without belonging to it. His right of Headship and Presidency is not de- 
rived from the General Conference in any way. He is not indebted to the General Con- 
ference for his ;jo.si7/oM there. His being there is not by concession of that body. As 
the general lule, his Presidency is one of the conditions of the existence of the body. 
He is there by appointment of the constitution, to preside and oversee. Even when 
there, as President, he is not tlie officer of the Conference in the sense contended for. 
It is not for them to elect whether he shall be there or not. He is the officer of the 
constitution — the Church, and without an abuse of right — of privilege; the General 
Conference cannot even object, constitutionally, much less remove him, and then only 
by regular adjudication, for improper con ^uct, by an appeal to law and evidence. The 
right of trial by committee, and of appeal, under circumstances affording full and fair 
opportunity of defence, is another constitutional principle of Methodist polity, existing 
prior to, and independently of, the General Conference, and applies to all ministers and 
members of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and to a Bishop, (if he be a minister.) 
not less than others. Nor is there anything in the discipline opposed to this. The an- 
swer to question 4, section 4, is simply declaratory of the amenability of the Bishop 
to the General Conference, and th.e right of the Conference to try and determine in the 
case; but the mods of trial is determined by the constitution, to be by committee, and as 
the case comes of course before the General Conference, it is virtually an appeal. The 
real difficulty is defective legislation ; no statute exists to carry out the provision of the 
constitution, which expressly declares that 7w viinister shall be deprived of trial by 
committee. When a Bishop is charged or arraigned at a General Conference, not to 
violate the constitution, he should be tried by a committee of his peers, and then let the 
Conference decide. I know no statute requires this, and it is equally true that none 
forbids it ; and as it is explicitly exacted by the constitution, trial, without the inter- 
vention of a committee, is a violation of that instrument, and would be equally uncon- 
stitutional, were it authorized by statute, for, in either case, it is doing what the con- 
stitution says the General Conference shall have no power to do, in the ca.se of any 
minister, preacher, or member. 

The tenure by which the Bisiiop holds office, before and since the adoption of the re- 
strictive rules, is distinctly, in the articles themselves, recognized as of constitutional 
force; and any course of legislation or judical action, any declaratory act of the Gen- 
eral Conference, in any way tending to unsettle such tenure, placing it, for example, 
under the control of a mere majority of the General Conference, instead of the consti- 
tution, and thus depriving the Executive Department of its intended vigor and stabil- 
ity, is in violation of a plain constitutional provision of the Discipline. 

The Articles of Pveligion are, also, an important and prominent part of the constitu- 
tion. The 5th of these teaches, that what is not taught in the Bible, is not essential to 
Christianity, in theory or practice ; any conduct, therefore, not required or forbidden in 
the word of God, unless it be so required or forbidden by some other part of the con- 
ventional compact, existing as the constitution of the Church, cannot be made the con- 
dition of eligibility, either as it regards membership or office, on the part of the laity 
or ministry, without the violation, alledged in the preceding cases. No such require- 
ment or prohibition can be shown in the case of Bishop Andrew, and hence the infer- 



70 

ence of the Protest, as to the unconstitutionality of the proceedings against him. The 
23d article, as explained by the General Conference, expressly enforces subjection and 
deference — peaceable submission to all civil authority ; requires the use of all laudable 
means to secure obedience to "the powers that be," and requires all to conduct as quiet 
and orderly citizens and subjects. The Constitution of the United States, the Nation- 
al Legislature, and the highest judicial tribunals of the country, have decided that 
slavery is a civil relation, created bylaw, and subject only, under federal protection, to 
the control of the Stales in wliich it exists. The same authority deprives, (with his 
own consent, in the federal compact,) every citizen of the United States of any right 
to interfere with this relation. Beside, in the State of Georgia, the Legislature alone 
has power to free a slave, and for a long term of years, lias uniformly refused to do so, 
on any account. The General Conference require Bishop Andrew to do what they 
know could only be done by the Legislature of the State; and declare him unfit for a 
Christian Bishop, for sustaining a civil relation created by law, without any agency of 
his, and v.-hich he cannot dissolve, if he would. Such conduct, tiie Protest assumes, is 
in direct conflict with the duties of citizenship, pledged in the article in question, and 
is directly calculated, if not intended, to generate and cherish contempt and disaffection 
for the national constitution, as well as the constitutions and laws of nearly one half 
the Stales of the confederacy; and thus, by how far it may prevail, preparing the way 
for the disunion of tiie States and the overthrow of the government. The 21st article 
says, "it is lawful for a minister, as for all other christians, to marry at their own dis- 
cretion, as Uipy shall judge the same to serve best to godliness." Being the owner of 
slaves already, by the avoidless operation of lav^, for marrj-ing a lady possessed of 
slaves, an act allowed as above, and not elsewhere prohibited, by any law of Heaven 
or earth. Bishop Andrew is directed to desist from the exercise of his Episcopal func- 
tions. Was not this requirement in violation of a right secured to Bishop Andrew by 
the constitution of the Church? The "general rule" on slavery is admitted, on all 
hands, to be a part of the constitution since 1808. The intention of the rule was to 
declare the disapproval and opposition of the church to the slave trade, and the system 
of slavery as consequent upon it. This rule, by the 4th restrictive article, cannot be 
revoked or changed by the General Conference. It is not only not competent for the' 
Conference to revoke, but they cannot alter it so as to change its character, or make it 
different in its bearings and application. Any statutory regulations, therefore, on the 
subject of slavery, must, by constitutional restraint, be merely expository of the pur- 
pose and intention of the general rule; for, going beyond this, would be to change it, 
and would, of course, infringe the constitution. Any legislation contrary to the rule, 
would be in effect to revoke it. Any coming short or transcending it, in range and ap- 
plication, would be, actually, in every practical sense, to change it. All tlic legislation 
we have had then, since 1769, and especially since 1808, when the restriction was im- 
posed on the General Conference, can only be considered as a statutory exposition of 
this rule; and every deviation from it, if any, has been an unconstitutional meddling 
wilii the subject. The rule, too, is a "general" one, that is, applies to all — to Bish- 
ops even, as all will admit. Lideed, no incredulity can doubt, no ingenuity evade the 
conclusion. If, then, the general rule apply to Bishops, how does it happen that the 
statutory exposition of it makes an exception of them? The very supposition exposes 
its own absurdity. And it follows, hence, that the whole law of slavery must apply to 
Bislions'ts to oiucr grades of the ministry. This is the position of the Protest. Flere 
then is the law, and let Bishop Andrew be tried by it. If it appear that he has bought, 
sold, or enwlaved, man, woman, or child, let him be punished. If he be a slave liolder, 



71 

as a citizen of Georgia, and the laws of the State admit of emancipation, and allow 
the liberated slave to enjoy freedom, he is liable to arrest, and let the punishment fol- 
low. But should the facts negative both suppositions, as is elsewhere demonstrated, 
then the laio gives vo right to touch him, and to do so, is a violation of the constitution. 
I maintain, therefore, that it follows, irresistibly,' that the proceedings of the late Gen- 
eral Conference, in Bishop Andrew's case, were a direct and gross violation of the con- 
stitution and laws of the Church, and that the minority had a right to declare them 
null and void. On the subject of such right, under the circumstances in proof. Chief 
Justice Marshall says, "a legislative act, contrary to the constitution, is not a law. An 
act of the Legislature repugnant to the constitution, is void. '^ He adds, "this theory 
is essentially attached to written constitutions, and is to be considered as one of the fun- 
damental principles of society;" and its application to judicial and executive acts, must 
be equally apparent. 

Bishop Andrew become the owner of slaves by compulsion of law, without any will 
or consent of his own, entirely apart from his marriage. That I might not be in error 
on this subject, I applied, through a friend, to two distinguished Jurists of Georgia, 
for the law of the State — the whole law relating to the emancipation of slaves, and 
subjoin their reply: — 

"Laws of Georgia in reference to the manumission of Slaves. — 1801: Section 1. — • 
From and after the passing of this act, it shall not be lawful for any person or persons 
to manumit, or set free, any negro slave or slaves, any mulatto or inustigo, or any oth- 
er person or persons of color, who may be deemed slaves at the time of the passing of 
this act, in any other manner or form, than by an application to the Legislature for that 
purpose." 1818: Section 4. — "All and every will, testament, deed, wiiether by way of 
tr2ist, or otherwise, contract, agrce?nent, or stipulation, or other instrum.ent, in tcritivg, 
or by parol, made and executed for the purpose of effecting, or endeavoring to effect, 
the manumission of any slave or slaves, either directly, by conferring, or attempting to 
confer freedom on such slave or slaves, or indirectly or virtually, by allowing and se- 
curing, or attempting to allow and secure, to such slave or slaves, the right or privi- 
lege of working for his or her benefit, or themselves free from the control of the mas- 
ter or owner of such slave or slaves, or of enjoying the profit of his, her or their labor 
or skill, shall be, and the same are hereby, declared to be null and void." The law then 
proceeds to declare that any person attempting to manumit, or being in any icay con- 
cerned in the attempt, shall be subject to a penally not exceeding one thousand dollars ; 
and the slaves attempted to be made free, shall be sold at public outcry. 

"Georgia, Richmond county. — We, the undersigned, members of the Augusta Bar, 
hereby certify that the aforegoing are true extracts from the Acts of the Legislature, now 
??i /o/-ce, relative to the emancipation of slaves. The general policy of the Legisla- 
ture of Georgia, relative to passing acts of emancipation, on application of particular 
individuals, is decidedly against it. We have known many instances in which it was 
refused, and but two in which it was granted, under very peculiar circumstances. We 
have never known an instance in which legislative emancipation was granted to a man's 
s\a.\es generaVv. We have also known applications refused under verv strong appeals. 

WM. W. iiOLT, 
CHARLES J. JENKINS. 

29th July, 1844." 

This will, perhaps, place at rest the suspicion attempted to be excited by the Reply, 
and some of the Northern Church Papers, that the laws of Georgia did not render 
emancipation as impracticable as was assumed by the friends of Bishop Andrew. The 
law of Maryland, as explained and attested by the Hon. Mr. Merrick, of the United 



72 

States Senate, and Judge Key, placed it equally out of the power of Mr. Harding, of 
the Baltimore Conference, to manumit the slaves of his wife, and yet, the mnjo'rity of 
the General Conference required both Bishop Andrew and Mr. Harding to do what the 
municipal laws of Georgia and Maryland forbid ; that is, the Church required these 
men to perform unla.vful acts — required them to commit the sin and brave the penal- 
ties of a civil trespass to secure the favor of the Church, and actually punished both for 
not doing it. If emancipation be jiracticable in Maryland, in the sense of the Discip- 
line, that is, kgally, and at the same time permitting the liberated slave to enjoy free- 
dom in the State, why did the Representative of the Baltimore Conference, in the ap- 
peal case of Harding, avow, in behalf of the Conference, that they did not intend to be 
governed by the laws of Maryland on the subject of slavery? And why was it avowed, 
by another member of the Baltimore Delegation, that the law could be violated with 
impunity, and that, therefore, it ought to be resisted? Why, too, was it so much in- 
sisted upon, that Harding might have freed his wife's slaves by removal from the 
State? These facts would not be noticed, but for the much more important one, that 
the doctrine and conduct in question were endorsed by the majority of the General Con- 
ference, and ecclesiastical law thus brought, as charged in the Protest, in direct con- 
flict with the laws of the land. Ecclesiastical was claimed to be above, to supersede, 
and virtually abrogate civil law ; and it is but too true, that language to this effect has, 
to a fearful extent, become the vulgar tongue of a large portion of Northern Metho- 
dism on the subject of Slavery. The position was avowed, and gloried in, that no 
slave-owning citizen of Georgia, or any other State whose laws are similar, can be a 
Bishop of the Methodist Episcopal Church, without an act constituling a ■pe7}al offence 
against the laws of the State to which he owes allegiance. He is required to violate 
or evade civil law, as the only condition upon which he can be permitted to exercise 
the functions of a Bishop. The office is declared to be incompatible with the obliga- 
tions of citizenship in some twelve of the Southern States. He is disfranchised, be- 
cause, as a citizen, he cannot do what the Church requires. In other words, the Church 
assumes to have an officer who shall be exempt from the operation of the law of the 
State in which he lives, or else, no citizen of that State is eligible to the office. Can 
the South be expected to submit to this? 

It may be necessary to notice, briefly, the denial of the Manifesto, that the law of 
slavery applies to Bishops. The majority think the law cannot apply to Bishops, be- 
cause the 7node of trial is not the same as in the case of other Traveling Preachers. 
The same reasoning would exempt another clasj in like manner, as the mode of trial 
is not the same in the cases of Traveling and Local Preachers ; therefore the law of 
slavery cannot apply to J/Ocal Preachers, as they are not natned any more than Bish- 
ops. With reg:ird to the trifling salary regulation of 1836, unless the General Con- 
ference regarded Bishops as Traveling Preachers proper, they violated the plain letter 
of the constitution, in allowing them any salary at all. According to Doctors Durbin, 
Peck and Elliott, every dollar appropriated to the Bisho[)s. since 1808, is an open abuse 
of a plain constitutional trust, respecting the proceeds of the Book Concern and Char- 
tered Fund ; such allowance, as all know, being restricted to Traveling Preachers only. 
But further, the customary phrase in the Discipline, "Traveling Preachers," is, every 
where and uniformly used, to distinguish the itinerant from the local ministry, and for 
no other purpose. Bishops must belong to one or the other, and if to the itinerant 
class, as they are no where excepted, the law of slavery must apply to them; and if 
not, as slave holding in the ministry is regulated by law, then slavery in the Episcopa- 
cy cannot be considered as a trespass of any kind, and the doctrine of the Protest is 



73 

fully sustained by one of the principal postulates of the Reply. Unless Bishops are 
included under the phrase "Traveling' Preachers," they are excluded from our pulpits, 
so far as 7-iglU is concerned, by the very terms of our Deed of Settlement. It is reck- 
lessly affirmed in the Reply, that in the Discipline, "special provision is made in the 
case of Local and Traveling Preachers." This statement is utterly unfounded : not 
only are Local Preachers not named in tlie section on slavery, but they are not alluded 
to at all, except by a construction which must inevitably include Bishops. If the phrase 
"official station," be construed, as it certainly should, to include them, when they as- 
pire to ordination, &c., so, also, does it, of necessity, include Bishops. If Bishops 
hold "official stations," the law of slavery must apply to them. The Reply makes the 
discovery, that the section on slavery applies only to officers of the Church. Turn now 
to a Bishop : — Is he an officer of the Church, holding "official station?" and if so, as all 
must see at once, the law of slavery must apply to him, and lie bo protected by it, so far 
as it may be intended to aliurd protection in any instance. This single admission sets 
aside the denial of the Reply as absurd and self-contradictory. But again, in view of 
the "special provision" of the Reply for Local Preachers, which, as we have seen, cov- 
ers equally the case of Bishops, with what show of fairness can the Repliers deny, as 
they do, the assumption of the Protest, that we have express law, covering the case of 
Bishop Andrew? What is the difference between "express law" and "special provis- 
ion?" The Reply explicitly admits, what elsewhere it most laboriously denies, that the 
law of slavery does apply to Bishops. It urges, for example, that Bishop Andrew, by 
a deed of trust, placed it out of his povver to do what, by a change of the law of Georgia, 
the Discipline would 'imperatively' demand, and a 'standing law' of the Church require! 
Now, unless this be regarded as a full and unequivocal admission, that the law of slave- 
ry ai)plies to Bishops, and covers the case of Bishop Andrew, not only is the reasoning 
absurd, but the whole passage devoid of sense ; and we thus demonstrate that the ad- 
verse position of the Reply, overthrown by these fatal concessions, must have been re- 
sorted to to meet an emergency. If the Bishops are excluded from subjection to the law 
of slavery, because not named, then are they equally excluded in the instance of man7 
of the most important laws of the Church, as in many of its most cardinal regulations 
they are not named at all. In one of their official addresses, the Bishops speak of 
themselves and their work as constituting a "department of the traveling ministry." 
The majority labored long and hard, at the last General Conference, to show that 
slavery is a moral question — a question of conscience. Dr. Emory, in liis celebrated 
report in 1828, says, that all the moral laics of Methodism apply to Bishops as truly as 
to any other portion of the Church ; and yet we are told the law of slavery does not 
include them. They maintained a Bishop is not a Traveling Preacher in the sense of 
the Discipline, and yet, if even deposed as a Bishop, he would still be a Traveling El- 
der in good standing;! Not belonging to any Conference in the United States or else- 
where, where would be his place, and what his rights, as a Traveling Preacher? What 
Conference could have claimed him? What Bishop would have dared to give him an 
appointment? Or, acting upon Bishop Hamline's suggestion, would the General Con- 
ference have been so obliging as to exercise the rights of an Annual Conference, and 
the appointing povver of the Episcopacy, in addition, and so taken care that he iiad both 
place and work as a Traveling Preacher? This whole attempt to deprive Bishops of 
the protection, and yet subject them to the restraints of the law of slavery, must strike 
nil as extraordinary, to say the least of it, and we are compelled to think, that but for 
the good fortune of such folly, (as it seems to us,) in having able supporters, its suc- 
cess would be slender indeed. In the General Conference's plan of division, adopted 
10 



74 

only two days before the date of the Reply, it is said,] "Ministers, local and traveling, 
of every grade and office, in the Methodist Episcopal Church, may," &c. And this 
form of expression all admit was intended to include Bisbops, not less than other min- 
isters ; and proofs to the same effect might be multiplied to almost any extent, but it 
cannot be necessary. 

We are often reminded that the middle or umpire Conferences will protect the South. 
We have grave reasons for believing that tliese Conferences, unless utterly misrepre- 
sented in the last General Conference, are in alliance with abolitionism, so far as may 
be necessary to carry out tho purposes indicated by the action of that body on the sub- 
ject of slavery. On every question before that body, involving Southern interest, they 
went almost en masse with the abolitionists. They supported the abolition measure to 
rescind the law prohibiting colored testimony against white persons, where it was not 
allowed in civil proceedings, and thus placed ecclesiastical, in conflict with civil right, 
in all the slave holding Stales. The middle, or anti-slavery party, went with the abo- 
litionists in Harding's case. They were side by side and shoulder to shoulder against. 
Bishop Andrew. They acted together in ihe election of one of the new Bishops. 
They were one m resisting the proposition of the Bishops, and the whole South, to ap- 
peal the case of BisJiop Andrew to the Annual Conferences and the Church. They ac- 
ted with the abolitionists in the avowal of a principle unknown to law, and disavowed 
by a preceding General Conference, as we have proved, that connection with slavery, even 
under circumstances expressly excepted by the law, disqualifies a minister for the Epis- 
copal office. They did all this and more. And, connected with the last item, they failed 
either to say, or let it be understood, that an abolitionist could not be elected Bishop. And 
yet we are called v,pon to confideour interests to the care of these Conferences. If they did 
net intend a coalition with the abolitionists, why did they not express disapproval of the 
almost innumerable abolition petitions, demanding that all slave holders be separated 
from the Church? Why was it the South could get no report upon these petitions — 
for or against the objects prayed for? Tlie reply avows that these petitions were a 
reason of action against Bishop Andrew. Why not reported on then, and new legisla- 
tion had? Do the majority intend to proclaim the fact, that they were governed by pe- 
titions and party interests, rather than law? Beside, why be governed by a few peti- 
tions, as to slavery in the Episcopacy, and pay no attention to the many, praying that 
slavery be separated from the Church in all its parts and relations? In a word, these 
and similar demonstrations satisfied the South that anti-slavery and abolition will nev- 
er pause until the South shall refuse submission, or be trodden under foot. 

It is distiiictly premised in the Reply, that anti-slavery and abolition principles and 
feelings, in the North, are far in advance of laiv, and the petitions presented, as well as 
the debates and action at the last General Conference, prove it; and being urged as the 
grand reason of action, does not the Reply avow, what the Protest charges, an extra 
judicial procedure, going beyond law to accomplish ulterior purposes? Tlie petitions, 
too, and the agitation, by Methodist Preachers, in which, to a great extent, they had 
their origin, were in direct violation of the advice and authority of the two preceding 
General Conferences, as we have shown, and the action of the last General Confer- 
ence dishonoring, as we have further shown, the assurances of the same body in 1S36 
and 1840. The South, on these accounts, was the less inclined to believe that the um- 
pire Conferences could be any longer relied upon, as likely to pursue a medium, com- 
promise course, as settled by the law of liie Church. Unprotected by the pledge of 
Dublic law, upon what can we rely for tlie security of our rights? What is our safety, 
as a minority? We can only judge the future from the past; and what hope of in- 



'iJ 



demnity is afforded by the review? The conviction is general in the South, tliat while 
we remain a mere minority, as now, the evil is without remedy. 

On all the great interests of the main question, there is no division of public opin- 
ion and feeling, except as individual cases usually form exceptions to general rules. 
These exceptions, it is believed, are not understood North, either as it regards the po- 
litical or religious aspects of tiie question. In the pending controversy in the Meth- 
odist Church, small portions of the ministry and membership, in border sections South, 
have manifested an ill-disguised inclination, if not purpose, so to adjust themselves to 
any emergency ahead, that it will be an easy matter to find themselves, or be found, 
wherever" he greatest indemnity of circumstances may happen to present the only at- 
traction they are likely to yield to. Another portion, small, it is believed, have been 
misled by the fiil^e issues so constantly and plausibly kept before them ; and still an- 
other poriion is met with, whose affinities are entirely northern. From the manner in 
which these several classes have reported themselves, it has been inferred North, as as- 
sumed here, that State policy and public popular conviction can be so controlled in Ken- 
tucky, Missouri, Virginia, and Maryland, as to favor the views and movements of the 
North on this subject. Those who affect to think so, however, have entirely miscal- 
culated, and we greatly fear that it will be found necessary, in these States, to resist such 
a state of things, under the impulse of reasons much stronger than the abstractions of 
Church casuistry. It is believed that the opinions of Southern Methodism, on the sub- 
ject of slavery, type pretty fairly the opinions of general society, including those who 
do and those who do not hold slaves. Southern Methodists, (with exceptions as above,) 
maintain that no abstract principle can become a rule of action without regard to cir- 
cumstances. Here the North and South divide on the subject of slavery. Tliat slave- 
ry is an evil, is admitted on all hands. The South maintains, however, that circumstau- 
ces obviously Providential, and not subject to the control of the actor or agent, so mca- 
ify'the question that the abstract wrong in the case ceases to be a correct principle of 
iudament. and the real morality of slavery can only be judged of correctly, in view of 
'circumstances which may either increase or 7nit^gate the evil, and gives it, in fact, its 
only proper moral character. By this rule we are always willing to be judged. Tho 
reasonino- of the Reply admits the majority acted without the warrant of law in Bish- 
op Andre'w's case, and it was this defection and trespass, as indicating the general po- 
sition of the North, which stirred the South to resistance. The majority required not 
merely what they knew to be legally impracticable, but what they knew to be contrary 
to law, and a penal offence. They said, in terms which cannot be misunderstood where 
the English language is known, that Bishop Andrew, as a citizen of Georgia, ^^st vio- 
late the obligations of citizenship in that State, or cease to bo a Bishop of the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church. They required of him an act unlawful in itself, in the State ot 
his residence, and did it while a plain law of the Church gave public and formal assu- 
rance it should not be done. The Reply further, in the whole tenor of its argument, 
admits that Bishop Andrew became "unacceptable" to the North, without having vio- 
lated any law or rule of the Church. It will certainly be admitted that a Bishop holds 
office according to rule and law regulating the conduct and duties of a Bishop. If, then, 
Bishop Andrew had not infringed these, which is not assumed, and yet had become un- 
acceptable to the North, does it not show that the requirements of the North went be- 
yondlaw, and exacted, as the condition of acceptability, what the law did not require? 
It was against such injustice the South protested, and will always defend herself. 

A very large proportion of the Minority of the South, in the late General Conference, 
have no connection with slavery, and so far as it may depend upon themselves, never ex- 



T6 



pect to have any. Many of them have done much, and expect to do more, for the free- 
dom of the negro. They had themselves manumitted a large number of slaves, and had 
been the means of securing the freedom of many others, and they are not prepared to 
submit to be libelled and proscribed by those who never have and are never likely to do 
any thing for the negro, and whose zeal seems to derive its principal pabulum from the 
successof their efforts, in preventing others from doing any thing. Beside, we have 
political relations, and owe civil allegiance in the States in which we reside ; and is it 
to be supposed, that civil authority and public opinion, are lo be controlled in the slave 
holding States, by non-resident ecclesiastical rulers, or that Southern Methodists will 
submit and truckle to such interference? Mitigated as is the state of slavery, say in 
Maryland, Western Virginia, Kentucky, and Missouri ; seen as it is, that the Northern 
division of the Church intends to regulate the rights of citizenship and property as it 
regards the ministry and membership within these States, or else subject them to a dis- 
franchisemenf of Church rights; will these States continue to wink at such interference, 
combined as they know it to be, with an extensive confederate purpose, on the part of 
the North, to compel the Church South to submit to their creed and policy on the subject 
of slavery? Tolerant and good natured as these States are known to have been, those 
who are thus abusing public clemency, may find before long, that they have reached a 
limit, beyond which they are not to pass, in hope of further forbearance. As the free- 
dom of discussion degenerates into insolence of dictation, public attention is becoming 
wakeful, audits watchfulness more and more retributive. There has recently been a 
most labored effort, by ministers and members of the Methodist Episcopal Church, in 
Maryland, Western Virginia, Kentucky, and Missouri, to make the impression North, 
that as large portions of the citizens of these States have no personal connection with 
slavery, they can be detached from Southern interests, and induced to ally themselves 
with Northern abolition and anti-slavery. This is no doubt so, with regard to some. 
The fact just named proves it. But so far as it is the purpose to induce the belief that 
the great mass of non-slave holding citizens in these States, have any sympathy with 
Northern interference respecting slavery, or can be induced to separate in feelinc^ and 
interest, from those holding slaves about them, our Southern men with Northern p^redi- 
lections, will find themselves sadly mistaken. This class of citizens may not approve- 
may even be opposed to slavery, but knowing the rights and cherishing the interests of 
the States to which they belong, they will always be found ready to resist any inferfer- 
ence with them, come from what quarter it may. Thousands of them, ninety nine in 
the hundred, who would be glad to see slavery extinct in the land, will never consent 
to emancipation except upon the condition, that as rapidlv as the slaves are freed they 
shall be removed from the State. Remove them with the prospect that they will do'well 
and very few will object to their freedom. ' 

Another movement on the part of the late General Conference, regarded by the South 
as h)gh-handed and dangerous, was an attempt to establish the novel doctrine that be- 
fore a Methodist traveling preacher, owning slaves, is fairly entitled to the protection 
of the law of exception in the Discipline, he must do all in his power to effect the free- 
dom of his slaves by removal to another State or countrv. A very slight analysis of 
the proceedings in the cases of Bishop Andrew and Harding, will show that in the ad- 
judication in either case, this lawless expedient, assumed (however indirectly ) the 
shape of an actual requirement, for it was urged that however impracticable or unlaw- 
ful emancpation might be in Georgia and Maryland, the diOicultv mic^ht have been 
overcome by removal and the defendants are accordingly punished f;r not^availin.r them- 
selves of it, although the requirem^^nt is utterly without the pals of law-contrary to 



77 

its letter and purpose, and extra-leg.il in every respect in which it can be looked at. 
Can Methodism exist South, when it requires Southern ministers to expatriate themselves 
in order to secure the favor and protection of the Church? How many Southern minis- 
ters will avail themselves of such an obliging overture, we have no means of deciding. 
To the charge made in form and variously insinuated in high places at the North, that 
the Southern ministry of the Methodist Episcopal Church are pro-slavery in principle 
and practice, and that they promote and uphold the system from the love of it ; that in 
this respect thoy are not Methodists according to the Discipline, and have been trying 
to innovate, so as to induce the Church to depart from long established landmarks on the 
subject, we oppose an explicit denial, and pronounce the charge as destitute of truth as 
it is replete with injustice and outrage. The South has not moved in this matter at any 
period, except in self defence, when the Church has been disposed to decree, that a civil 
relation, sanctioned by the supreme authority of the nation, was incompatible with the 
sanctity of Church relations. The South has uniformly acted in resistance of North- 
ern innovation. And especially has the South been satisfied since the last compromise 
regulation of 1816, affranchising slave holding ministers as it regards all the ofiices of 
the Church, in States where emancipation is impracticable. We have sought no 
change— we wanted none. We asked for none at the late General Conference? We 
are perfectly satisfied with the law as it is, and as it has been understood and interpre- 
ted both by the General Conference and the executive department up to 1844. We do 
object, however, and we never will submit to the construction put upon the law at the 
last General Conference. The Majority of that body changed the law essentially, by 
giving it a constructive application unknown in the whole range of its administration; 
and the practical effect is new legislation on the subject of slavery, in direct conflict 
with existing law, as explained by the General Conference, assuming, among other 
things, that no owner of slaves, under any circumstances, however providential, and 
whatever the laws of the State may be, can hold or exercise the office of Bishop in the 
Methodist Episcopal Church. This proposition of the Majority misrepresents the law, 
and disfranchises in terms, every slave holding minister in the South, and in factallah- 
solutely, as all are liable, without any agency of their own, to become the owners of 
slaves, and emancipation is no where practicable, except in two or three of the States, 
contingently. This decision of the General Conference the South will not submit toj 
because they cannot do so without self destruction. The South could not, without 
ruin, and will not from principle, submit to the inequality of right in the ministry, 
North and South, assumed and attempted to be established, both by General Conference 
action and in the Reply. We merely claimed the right of equality, on the basis of 
law, not as enforcable, but simply declared and protected, in the theory of government. 
While affranchised in law, wo were willing to leave it to the Majority to avail them- 
selves, at any time, of the right of franchise, as they saw proper. Enfranchisement, 
however, by declaratory enactment, with the avowed purpose, as by the late General 
Conference, of disfnmrJiisement in fact, is too gross an outrage on all social equity to 
be borne by the Southern ministry, and is accordingly resisted with almost perfect una- 
nimity. 

In relation to the charge brouglit against the Southern Methodist Ministry, that they 
are the supporters and promoters of slavery, although found in the Northern General 
Conference papers, we are by no means anxious, beyond the extent to which it com- 
pels us, to ascribe the charge to improper motives, on the part of those who make it. 
We are perfectly willing to be compared with those who thus defame us, at any time. 
Appealing to what we have done, and are doing for the slave, we are prepared to abide 



the judgment of the wise and the good. To be reproached and misrepresented, by those 
who have never appealed to any rational means to remove the evil of slavery, and who 
seek to atone for the notorious defect, by abusing those who are doing all that can be 
safely done to this effect, that is, really all lliat is done at all, may annoy but cannot 
alarm the Southern Church. We regard ourselves as involved in a great providential 
movement, connected with the destinies of the African race, here and elsewhere. 
Were it in our power, without interfering with the rights of others, we would release 
them from civil bondage ; but as it is not, and Christianity directs us not to oppose our- 
selves to civil authority, but instead, to submit to it, as "the ordinance of God," we 
are content to do what we are allowed to, to alleviate and render tolerable, a condition 
resulting from no act of ours, but having its origin in the organic arrangements of 
civil society. With these views, we shall pursue our course undeterred by any amount 
of cursing or abuse from our enemies, until we shall have fulfilled our mission, or 
Providence shall indicate a different course of action. The Church South has been the 
means of the en:ancipation of thousands of slaves. Methodist ministers alone, since 
1775, have given freedom to thousands, held in their own right. Some have freed from 
thirty to sixty at a time. And not only have they aimed at the good of the negro in 
this way, but they have actually evangelized, including the dead and the living, several 
hundred thousand of them during the last seventy years, beside contributing to the im- 
provement of their condition in other respects, vitally connected with the happiness of 
time and the hopes of eternity. And but for the censorship and unkindness of the 
North, (large portions always excepted) both to the negro and his benefactors, 
Southern Methodism had achieved for the slave infinitely more than it has. Northern 
uncharitableness, in the shape of bitter denunciation and arrogant interference, tends 
every year to rivet the fetters and prolong the captivity of the Southern slave. Who 
can estimate the incalculable, the eternal mischief resulting from the conduct of the 
North, to the great and noble, the God-like cause of emancipation and colonizationl 
These can only exist and operate in this country, as cause and effect. They are related , 
inseparable developments of the benevolent energies of a great people. The one will 
not, cannot advance without the other. Together, they constitute the hope of the 
country, in relation to this most exciting and important subject. Emancipation without 
removal, without colonization, is but the dream of the visionary, if, indeed, visionary 
ever had such a dream. The very thought is folly ; it cannot be. And nothing is more 
certain, than that the conduct of the Nortli, respecting slavery, has arrested, almost 
entirely, both emancipation and colonization. Tliey have re-enslaved the negro of the 
South. They havo rolled back and involved in darkness, the tide of light and life, on 
ils passage to Africa. In the year 1830, more negroes obtained their freedom in Ken- 
tucky, th'an have been freed during the fourteen years since, on account of Northern 
interference with what did not in any way belong to them. And the same is true, and 
to a much greater extent, of other portions of the South. There was a general dispo- 
sition to favor emancipation, upon condition of removal. Eut, alas, how has this fair 
work of God been defaced and thrown down by the insane extravagance, tiie nigiit- 
mare frenzy of Northern abolitionism, aided, in but too many instances, by heads and 
hands consecrated, and with the vows of God upon them, for other purposes! And is 
it not indeed grievous, most afflicting, to see the old anti-slavery party falling off from 
this noble work of God and man, for the weal of the negro, wherever found, and lend- 
infr themselves to measures and movements, wliich, by retarding the gradual freedom 
of'lhe enslaved negro and African Colonization, must of necessity give vigor and per- 
petuity to the curse and infamy even of the slave trade itself. The more immediate 



79 

evils, however, of anti-slavery agitation, connect with our civil and political rela- 
tions as a confederacy of free and slave States. Of these agitators, Mr. Frelinghuysen 
remarks, they are "seeking to destroy our happy Union." Chancellor Walworth says, 
"they are contemplating a violation of the rights of property secured by the constitu- 
tion they are sworn to support, and pursuing measures which must lead to a civil war." 
The lessons of experience and the warning voice of history are lost upon this class of 
disturbers. What do they care, that according to a late English journal, a standing ar- 
my in the West Indies, the most recent example to which they can appeal, is necessary 
"to stifle the seeds of revolt consequent on achieved slave emancipation." Even the 
virtuous Clarkson, their own witness, is unheeded by them when he declares that, "the 
extent to which voluntary emancipation, in view of colonization in Africa, had taken 
place in the United States, is the most surprising exhibition of human virtue, to be met 
with in the whole history of negro emancipation." 

The boast of the Mnjority, so much relied upon in the Pteply, that the Episcopacy in 
the whole line of Bishops, from Coke to the present worthy Bench, has never had any 
connection with slavery, until the unfortunate dereliction of Bishop Andrew, is rather 
premature. The Rev„ Wm. Hammet, of Charleston, South Carolina, and some time 
missionary in the West Indies, on leaving the Methodist Church and setting up for him- 
self, as a separatist, published, in 1792, a virulent pamphlet against Dr. Coke, and 
among many other charges enumerated, the most of which are clearly and ably refuted 
by Dr. Coke, in his answer, he brings to view Dr. Coke's connection with slavery in the 
island of St. Vincent, alledging that the Dr. had used the Caribb Mission fund, in the 
purchase of a lot of negroes to work a cotton and coffee plantation, presented by the 
Colonial Legislature, for the benefit of the mission. Dr. Coke, in his reply, now before 
me, printed in London 1793, in a very frank and satisfactory manner, disposes of many 
of the statements and inferences of Mr. Hammet, in reference to this transaction, as 
incorrect and unjust, but distinctly and in various forms admits the fact, that with money 
he had collected for the Caribb Mission, and funds of his own, he had, at tiie urgent 
solicitations of friends, purchased the slaves as charged, and had held and worked them 
as such, upon tiie cotton division of the mission plantation. The Dr. assigns as the 
principal reason of this purchase and ownership of slaves, that he could not have the 
plantation worked to advantage by either free negroes or hired slaves. He says, "in 
answer to the charge of my purchasing slaves, I shall give an account of the transac- 
tion, (the "purchase,) with all possible candor. My friends on all sides of me urged, 
that the present migiit be considered as an exempt case — that the gift of t!ie land was un- 
doubtedly Providential — that the slaves purchased for the cultivation of it, would cer- 
tainly be treated by us, in the tenderest manner. These and other arguments prevailed, 
and I gave directions that a sufficient supply should be procured for the cultivation of 
cotton on the low land." Whatever we may think of it, the missionary zeal of Dr. 
Coke made him a slave holder, by actual deliberate purciiase. This the Dr. avows in 
explanation of his course. He says further: "I had hardly left the Island, when my 
established principles began to operate. I considered that no exempt case could justify 
the proceeding — that we are not to do evil that good may come. The wound continued 
to deepen in my mind for some months, till I at last wrote from Baltimore to inform 
our missionary, (Mr. Baxter,) that I could not admit of any slaves upon tiie estate, on 
any consideration. Thus I have stated the whole business of the slaves. At the time I 
acted for the best, a.nd humanum est errare.'^ The Dr. repudiates the charge of an 
abuse of the missionary fund, by stating that out of his own private funds he paid to 
the mission, an amount equivalent to the sum he had used in the purchase of the slaves, 



so 

and adds that he was "tlie only looser in a pecuniary point of view." The Dr. does not 
say that he gave freedom to tliese slaves ; there is no allusion to any such fact, unless 
it may be inferred from the Dr's. 'consciousness of wrong, and the order to remove 
the slaves from the plantation. In the absence of evidence, however, I take it for grant- 
ed the Dr. freed them, although it would be much more satisfactory to many no doubt, 
to know that he did. I introduce this historical fact, about the truth of which no one 
can doubt, merely to show that the paraded assumption of the Reply, our Northern 
Journals, and the North generally, that no Bishop of the MethodisL Episcopal Church 
has ever had any connection with slavery, except Bishop Andrew, is not true, and by 
consequence, that the argument and action of the Majority, based upon it, fall to the 
ground, as it is incontestably certain, that the first Bisliop of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church was a slave holder by voluntary purchase, and not as Bishop Andrew, by the 
unavoidable control of circumstances. All that has been said, therefore, about the law 
of usage, invariable custom, &c. as excluding slavery from the Episcopacy not being 
true, is of course entirely inapplicable, and were it true, would be equally so. Lord 
Bacon lays it down as an incontrovertible principle of law and morals : "In all true 
judgment, there is a very great diuerence between an usage, to prove a thing lawful, and 
a non-usage to prove it unlawful." The difference is, the first may be legitimate proof, 
whereas the second is always preposterous. And yet it ranks as a principal argument 
against the Protest of the South. Because it is true, in the instance of all the Presi- 
dents of the United States from the North, that no one has been re-elected, therefore it 
is a settled principle of the government, that a Northern President can serve but for 
four years — a single term. Because it is equally true, that all the Southern Presidents 
have served the double term of eight years, therefore, it is a settled principle of the 
government that all Southern Presidents shall be re-elected. By the logic of our North- 
ern friends, no one can question the validity of the claim or the soundness of the de- 
monstration! 

The attempt to show that the North has conceded to the South, in the election of 
Southern men as Bishops, is too absurd to require more than a brief notice. Dividing 
by Conference lines, giving Baltimore to the North, with which she has always acted, 
until she divided on the question now agitating the Church, we have had but two South- 
ern Bishops, McKendree and Andrew. The first three Bishops of the Church were 
foreigners — English abolitionists of the school of Sharpe and Clarkson. Bishop George 
was from the Baltimore Conference, North. Pioberts, Soule, Hedding, Fisk, Morris, 
Waugh, Hamline. and Janes, were elected as Northern men. McKendree was elected 
without reference to the slave question. Bishop Andrevv's election, by Northern votes, 
was not a concession to the South. The circumstances under which Bishop Andrew 
was elected, have been utterly misrepresented. As was perfectly natural, the Soulliern 
delegates in 1832, were anxious that one of the Bishops to be elected, should be from 
the South. It so happened, however, (without any reference to slavery,) that the only 
individuals upon whom the Southern delegates could generally unite, were in fact, 
slave liolders, and ay the Northern majority were not backward to let it be known, tliat 
no slave holder could be elected, the Soutiiern delegates determined to have no candi- 
date, and allow the majority to select the men they might prefer. Thoy selected J. 0. 
Andrew as on^, knowing he was not tlie choice of the South, and that they were not 
gratifying the Southern delegates, (except a few,) in doing so. It was the avowed pol- 
icy of the North, to elect a Southern man, tliat tiicre might be no apparent ground of 
complaint from the South, and yet to accomplish tiieir own purposes in the exclusion of 
the men preferred by theSoutti, who happened to be the owners of slaves. The North 



SI 

did not elect Bishop Andrew as the candidate of the South. They knew he was not the 
choice of the South, and would not be supported by a majority of the Southern delegates, 
especially as the latter knew he had been fixed upon by the North for the express pur- 
pose of defeating the wishes of the South. The idea therefore, so industriously incul- 
cated, that Bisho°p Andrew and the South have violated the conditions of a private un- 
derstanding, in the instance of the Bishop's election, by the position they assumed at 
the late General Conference, has no foundation in truth. Furthermore, Northern men 
elected Bishop Andrew without consulting him— without coming to any understanding 
with him or the South on the subject. Northern views and purposes were alone con- 
sulted. The Soutli was not deferred to, nor cared for in the matter, beyond the fact, 
well understood at the time, as a matter of policy, that the election of a Southern man 
would silence the South, or compel the avowal, they wanted a slave holding Bishop! 
Such are the facts, as I understood them at the time, and I believe them to be correct ; 
from which it will not be difficult to see to what extent Bishop Andrew and the South 
are indebted to Northern magnanimity, so plausibly set forth in the Reply, and various 
other accounts we have had of Bishop Andrew's election. No little stress has been laid 
upon the fact, that some suggestions appeared in some of the Southern papers of the 
Church, to the effect, that the election of a slave holder to the Episcopacy, would go far 
to quiet the apprehensions of many in the South, that a purpose existed in the North, 
to proscribe the Southern ministry in this respect, so far as they might be connected 
with slavery. By the law of the Church and the authoritative exposition of the law by 
the Genera'l Conference, no legal barrier existed to preclude such election, and the of- 
fense, therefore, aliedged in the Reply, the Christian Advocate and Journal, and else- 
where, could only mean, that in the judgment of some, the interest of the South might 
be promoted, should the North be sufficiently just and generous, not to make an objec- 
tion of that which the law had explicitly declared should not operate any forfeiture of 
rioht, in view of any of the offices of the Church. The only offense charged, was sim- 
ply to state the constitutior.al claim of eligibility-the legal qualification necessary— 
not a right to be elected in fact, of which no one ever thought-but the claim of being 
eligible"; under no legal disability, which is in itself one of the plainest and best de- 
fined rights known in the theory of government. And ri^ht to this effect, and so un- 
derstood, is as clearly secured to the Southern slave holder, who cannot legally emanci- 
pate his slaves, and secure to them freedom after emancipation, as any other right be- 
lontring to the ministry. North or South. And to make the mere claim of this right an 
offe^nse, is so manifestly unjust, that in itself it furnishes a strong reason with the 
South for the proposed separation. If we are to be punished for barely reminding 
the North of a constitutional claim, it is really high time we had placed ourselves in a 
position to resist such constructive nullification of law and right. This whole argu- 
ment, however, proceeds upon a shameful misstatement of facts. It is warily attempt- 
ed to make the impression, that the South first moved in this matter, and put forth an 
unheard of, unlawful claim, whereas we have seen that the right is an undoubted one, 
secured by law and asserted by the General Conference; and it is further true, that the 
South was silent until after the fxMic denial of the right by a Northern "Convention of 
ministers and members of the Methodist Episcopal Church," and the purpose officially 
avowed to bring the matter before the next General Conference. The subject was first 
agitated in the North, and assumed there a most exciting and threatening aspect. This 
w^is well known to Dr. Bond, and to both the authors and signers of the Reply, for it 
had extensive publicity in the papers of the Church, before a word was heard from the 
South on the subject. This novel Northern movement was regarded as so manifestly 
11 



82 

offensive and out of character, that the Christian Advocate and Journal vindicated the 
cla.n. of the South as dear matter of rig^ht. (whether expedient to assert it or not,) and 
rebuked the Northern agitators, as guilty of an obvious outrage upon Sou.hern rio-ht and 
feeling, and mforming them at the same time, that they could not sustain their position 
before the Church. The conduct of the South, therefore, gravely charged as an offense, 
in the shape of a daring innovation, xvas a simple act of self defence against Nurlhern 
aggression, notoriously committed in defiance of law, and in the face of the whole 
Church, and the repeated formal attempts to make a contrary impression, injurious to 
the South, has rendered it necessary to direct attention, both to the misstatement of fact 
and the manifest injustice of the conclusion, founded upon it. The onlv force found in 
the argument, recoils upon the North, as every one will perceive by barely lookincr at it. 
As having a direct bearing upon this whole controversy, it is important to notice, 
that the rights of the ministry, as affected by simple slave holding, in States xvhere 
emancipation is not practicable, having been brought by memorial from Westmoreland. 
Virginia, before two General Conferences successively, those of 1836 and IR-IO • the 
latter decided, that -the Discipline of the Church having provided for the ordination of 
ministers thus c.-rcumstanced, the course pursued by the Baltimore Conference, (within 
whose limits Westmoreland is found,) operates an ahridsrement of rigid, and therefore, 
furn,shesJ«s^^ro^^nc^ of complaint. It is a depariurc from the plain intendment of 
law in the case, and a vioMion, not less of express compact than of social justice, to 
withhold ordination ?ox reasons which the provisions of the law plainly declare are not 
to be considered as a forfeiture of right." Here the General Conference style the law 
on slavery an express compact, and by various forms of proof, we have shown, that it 
was a compromise as truly as a compact. But this by the way. The decision from 
which we quote, adds, "attaching themselves to the Church, as citizens of Virginia 
where in the obvious sense of the Discipline, emancipation is imvraclicahh, theholdincr 
of slaves, or failure to emancipate them, cannot be plead in bar to the riglit of ordinal 
tion. The Church h^s failed to redeem the pledge of its ow7i laws, by refusino- or fail- 
ing to promote to office, ministers in whose case no disability attaches on the ground 
of slavery. The exception in the Discipline is, therefore, strictly applicable to all min- 
isters and members of the Methodist Episcopal Church, holding slaves in Virginia, and 
they appear clearly entitled to the benefit of the rule, made and provided in such case« " 
The question thus settled by the General Conference, can be misunderstood by no one 
and yet the Baltimore Conference has continued to withhold justice from the ministry 
connected with slavery in this section of Virginia, in violation both of general law and 
.special adjudication, by the General Conference, had upon the law. The Baltimore 
Conference has found. /Wic/a/ security against arraignment for such injustice, in the 
fact, that that body has so managed, as to be always able to defy proof that ordination 
was withheld on account of slavery alone, and not for other reasons. How far the fair 
the just, and the honorable, connect with xhe grounds of ihis impunity, in resistino- the 
authority of the General Conference, those interested must determine for themselves 
That It is a procedure unwarranted by law, and in violation of its plain provisions as 
solemnly adjudicated upon by the General Conference, no one, it is believed, will enter- 
tain a doubt. The law and the General Conference have both been set aside Th- 
decision adds, "the petitioners, in accordance with the provisions of the Discipline" 
whether said provisions J)e right or wrong, are entitled to remedy,- and su-rrosts in 
terms, that a transjer to the Virginia Conference, is perhaps, under all the circumstan- 
ces, the only "conclusive remedy" for the i^arty aggrieved. Whether the portion of 
the Church in this section of Virginia, will act upon the suggestion of the General 



83 

Conference, and seek connection with the Virginia Conference, or remain .is heretofore, 
in the Baltimore Conference, or seek an independent Conference existence, is a matter 
about which we have nothing to say. The principle involved however, was too impor- 
tant to be overlooked, and having placed the matter in its proper light, as it regards law 
and right, we leave it where it was left by the decision of the General Conference. 

,A very staid effort has been made to convince the church and world that as the only 
condition of continued union, the South insists that slavery must be admitted into the 
Episcopacy. The sophistry of this position can have escaped the notice of but few. 
The fact is, as we have shown at large, in various ways, the last General Conference 
avowed the principle, and took stand upon the ground, that no Minister of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, having connection with slavery, under any circumstan- 
ces, could, by constitutional right, exercise the ofiice of Bishop; and further, that 
the principle assumed, and the ground thus taken, were to constitute the only condi- 
tion upon which the Union between the North and the South can be perpetuated. So 
far, therefore, from the Soutli setting tjp a new term or condition of Union, the reverse 
is true, and the innovation comes from the North ; for they proceeded to make that a 
condition of Union, which, in the shape of law, and formal declaration by the General 
Conference, they had assured tlie church and the world should not be required of any 
man, in view of any of tlie various grades of office known in the ministry of the Meth- 
odist Episcopal CInirch. And the truth turns out to be, that instead of Southern in- 
novation, we have Northern violation of law and right, beside the dishonored pledge of 
the General Conference, upon which the South relied as security against the wrong 
thus inflicted. The question is not, whether Southern Methodist Preachers ought not 
to concede that no slave holder shall ever exercise the functions of Bishop, rather 
than divide the Church, but whether it is their duty to submit to a declared inequality of 
right, contrary to laic, and knowing that such submission must forever cripple and de- 
grade the Church in the South, where public opinion is known to be utterly intolerant 
of any such assumption. Tlie offense of the North is a denial and abuse of right se- 
cured by law. The question of slavery is settled by law. Does the laiv disfranchise? 
It does not, and until it does, the South says the Church shall not. What the South 
assumes, in this respect, seems to have been admitted as well as denied by the North. 
By two very important votes, the last General Conference decided that a slave holder 
may be a Bishop of the Methodist Episcopal Church, for Bisliop Andrew was declared 
to he such; and this certainly amounts to a virtual declaration, that a slave holder may 
be constitutionally elected to the office. Whatever would bar his election would, of 
course, bar his holding office. What right, then, has the Conference to depose or pun- 
ish for that which constitutes no barrier to election"! As the South had been profound- 
ly silent on the subject, why did the North set up the hue and cry about the election of 
a slave holding Bishop? What would have been thought. North, had ten thousand peti- 
tioners from the South prayed the last General Conference not to elect a negro a Bishop? 
It would not be difficult to show they had quite as good reasons forgetting up petitions 
to this effect, as the North had for the conduct of which we complain. The stale 
charge, and contemptible as it is stale, that certain Southern Ministers favor separa- 
tion, because they wish to become Bishops, is only entitled to notice, because men 
from whom nothing of the kind could have been expected, have risked the disreputa- 
tion of giving it currency. When it is recollected, however, that some men have no 
means of judging others, e.xcept by themselves, and advert to the additional fact, that 
there is equally good, and indeed much stronger reason to believe that those who ma- 



84 

lign and defame in this way, are acling exclusively with a view to their own personal 
and party interests, the charge is replied to quite beyond its merits. 

A similar perversion of facts is found in the charge, that the South declined the pro- 
position of the Bishops, to postpone the whole subject until another General Confer- 
ence, because they would not submit to Bishop Andrew's resignation, ad interim. This 
charge is wholly untrue. No such proposition was made by the Bishops. Their pro- 
position was, that Bishop Andrew should, meanwhile, perform his Episcopal functions 
as usual, except that he was not to have charge in the North, or where he might be ob- 
jected to as the owner of slaves ; and the whole South, to a man, favored the proposi- 
tion. The Reply treats the charge of the Protest, that Bishop Andrew was proceeded 
against extra-judicially, as something quite monstrous, and yet no small portion of its 
reasoning plainly admits the justice of the allegation. The most common and popular 
meaning of extra-judicial, is, out of the ordinary course of judicial procedure; and the 
Reply not only admits the proceeding in Bishop Andrew's case to be of this character, 
but argues at length to prove that nothing was left the Majority, in the exigence of the 
case, but to pursue such a course, and thus proves what the Protest assumes. The 
Protest also charges a lawless procedure, and the Reply not only admits, but directly 
assumes, that having a right to do so, the Majority, under the stress of circumstances, 
deemed it necessary to act without any appeal to law, and thus clearly sustains the Pro- 
test in this instance also. The whole burden of the Manifesto goes to show, that 
Bishop Andrew was laid aside, not for any offence against any law of the Church, but 
because he had rendered himself unacceptable to the North, by marrying a lady pos- 
sessed of slaves, although years before, the Providence of God had made^im the own- 
er of slaves, without his consent, and against his will, and in a State where he is im- 
peratively required to hold them, and even an attempt to free them, subjects him to pro- 
secution and punishment. See the law. 

Not ofTending against, but being fully protected by law, Bishop Andrew could only be 
unacceptable to the North so far as the law is so. The real cause of his bein^ unac- 
ceptable, is found in the fact, that the rapid growth of abolition and anti-slavery,°North, 
has antiquated the law, and it ceases to type Methodist opinion and feeling on the sub- 
ject of slavery. Both are far ahead of law, ,and the fact is admitted by th°e Reply, and 
urged as a reason of action. The Reply argues, that as the Episcopacy is common to 
the whole Church, law or no law, slavery must be kept out of it, because the North 
will not tolerate it. The Reply, however, forgets to argue further, that the General 
Conference is as common to the whole Church, as Episcopacy, and much more so in 
many respects, (and, according to the Repliers, a thousand fold more important,) and, 
therefore, must be kept free from slavery too. The Majority insist that the piirpose 
of the constitution can only be carried out by having Bishops acceptable everywhere. 
Of course they conscientiously electioneered and voted for men as Bishops, in May 
last, that they believed would be acceptable to the whole Church, South as well as 
North, or otherwise must have dishonored their own principles. Had Bishop Andrew 
yielded to the demands of the Majority, as going beyond, and in contravention of the 
law in the case, he would have rendered himself unacceptable to the whole South ; for 
the North to require it, therefore, was, upon their own showing, a violation of the con- 
stitution. 

One of the false issues attempted to be made by the Reply, and some of our Northern 
Church papers, is, that the x\orth is opposed to slavery ; the South resists their hostile 
demonstrations; therefore the South is pro-slavery. This logic seems to be endorsed 
as perfectly irrefutable by a large portion of the Northern Church, destitute, as it is, 



85 

of even the semblance of either reason or argument. It does not seem to be taken in- 
to the account at all, that the opposition of the South may relate entirely to what they 
regard as the unlawful and dangerous means resorted to in order to correct the evil 
Two physicians meet at the bed-side of a patient ; one prescribes, and the other oppos^ 
es the prescription; therefore the latter seeks the death of the patient. Comment is un- 
necessary. 

The Reply utterly perverts the position of the Protest with regard to "the reasons of 
the law" of slavery. The Protest, assuming the general law as a compromise arrange- 
ment, settling the principle of action upon which the parties agreed to act, appeals^o 
the "reasons," or final cause of such an arrangement, to show that the practical pur- 
pose had in view would be essentially defeated, by making any class of ministers an 
exceipiion to its operation ; and in all that is said in the Eeply, the real principle involv- 
ed is kept entirely out of sight, and not even glanced at. 

Another specimen of the consistency of the Majority, respecting slavery, is, that 
the General Conference is everything, and the Episcopacy nothing, comparatively, and 
yet slavery in the General Conference, where it has been found since 1792, does no 
harm, or at least is to be tolerated, while, in the Episcopacy, it is ruinous of the 
Church ! In the greater it is very well, but in the less it is not to be endured ! Bishop 
Hamline's "Croton River" may be polluted with it, but if it be found in the Episcopal 
Reservoir, supplied by this same river, (no matter about the other reservoirs,) woe be- 
tide the Church ! In one breath, or paragraph. Bishop Andrew is pure and spotless, 
and the laudation of his virtues, superior fitness, and admirable qualifications, is al- 
most offensive to good taste; in another, it is gravely debated whether he ought not to 
be impeached for improper conduct, and he is declared to have violated an important 
trust, and to be a dishonored man. The charge against Bishop Andrew was, connec- 
tion with slavery. The law of slavery consists of the general rule on that subject, and 
the 10th section. The arraignment of the Bishop is based upon an assumed infraction, 
not of either of these, but one of the restrictive articles, having no reference to the 
subject, and binding only upon the irhrs of Bishop Andrew. Both the general rule 
and the specific law regulating the subject, with regard to all our ministers, are eva- 
ded, and the constitution appealed to, at a point having no reference to the matter in 
hand; and thus, by construction, we have ex ^ost facto legislation, for the purpose of 
making an offence of that, which was not such, by the only law applicable in the case. 
In proceeding to action, they quote the constitution as law, but when held responsible 
for the action had, they assure us no law was appealed to, but the emergency met and 
disposed of without reference to law ! The Reply assumes the latter, and Finley's 
Preamble proves the former. 

The Reply says it was prevalently believed by the Majority, that Bishop Andrew 
might have been impeached for "improper conduct," under the express provisions of the 
Discipline. The only improper conduct charged, was slave holding. On this subject 
we have express law, it is true, but Doctors Durbin, Peck, and Elliott, as the expoun- 
ders of law for the Majority, maintain that it does not apply to Bishops, and of course 
the Discipline has no "express provisions" of any kind, applicable in the case. In the 
absence of all law then, as the Doctors contend, where are we to look for the "express 
provisions" of law on which to base an impeachment? No latitude of meaninrr at- 
tached to the phrase "improper conduct," will answer the purpose of the ReplierJ, for 
slave holding is the only conduct in question, and this, it is alledo-ed, tlie law does not 
recognize as "improper" in the instance of a Bishop, as that officer is exempt from its 
claims. Impeachment, therefore, was impossible, in the premises of the difficulty, ac- 



86 

cording to the showing of the very men who claim no small share of credit on the 
.round of forbearance, that is, for not doing what, according to their own arsument, 
rhev could not do. From the reasoning in portions of the Reply, and particular y in 
some of the speeches on the same side, the alledged misconduct of B.shop Andrew 
would seem to be the mere fact, that he had rendered himself, or by some means had 
become unacceptable to the North. He could not, it is said, be a Genera Supennten. 
dent Why not? In view of what law is he delinquenti We are told he is a 
slave holder. Grant it. On this subject we have a law, and Doctors Durbin, Peck, 
and Elliott, or if it be preferred, the Majority admit, as plainly as they deny, that i 
includes Bishops as well as other Ministers. By this law Bishop f"^^^^^ --""^ 
-he is fullv protected, and notwithstanding the argument ot the Reply-of Bishop Ham- 
line and others, to prove that the Majority are a Imv to themselves, still it is obviously 
felt North, as well as Souih, that it is necessary to invoke some other law, to prove de- 
linquency in view of some other standard, in order to give the right of punishment 
Lice writing the preceding sentence, I have opened a letter from an old veteran of 
the North, the pupil of Asburv. and the associate of Emory, to read-"I have no doubt 
you have the Discirline on your side-Bond and others have expediency. Another 
from a different Northern Conference, says. "God speed you, and so say thousands 
North of the line." I could quote pages to the same effect, from Northern men, not- 
withstanding the blustering gasconade with which it is attempted to make the impres- 
sion that the whole Church, North, regards the Church, South, as gui ty of apostacy 
from the first principles of Methodism. The Reply avows a change o^ Northern sen- 
timent, and the law remaining the same, the change avowed explains why Bishop An- 
drew is unacceptable North. Could this be more conclusively proved, than by che act, 
that Finley's resolution lays Bishop Andrew aside upon a prohibition of the constitu- 
tion, apply ng only to the General Conference itself, and which could only be brought 
bar upon Bishop Andrew by a manifest abuse of judicial trust. The real d.fticu - 
V the only cause of embarrassment, is found in the relations between the Church. 
Noith. and the Discipline, and not in the relations between B.shop Andrew and the law. 
Another proof, equally strong and pertinent, is furnished by the preface to the reso- 
Uuion of Griffith and Davis, in which the^--^ i^ declared to be the least favorable 
period in our history for tolerating a Bishop connected with slavery. And we again 
Lk wliv ' There is the law without change for a quarter of a century. Is it intended 
to say the Church will not abide by W The Bible too, is the same. Are we thus no- 
tified that while no want of acceptableness connects with the Bishop s relations to the 
Bible or Methodism, such want does connect with the Church! And what i. the infer- 
ence^ Who does not perceive ;hat the Church is in advance of both, and tnat both are 
required to yield to the innovations of party expediency! How came it to pass, too. 
that Bishop Andrew was declared, by the Majority, good enough for the off.ce of Bish- 
op, but unfit to perform its duties! By what warrant of candor or consistency do they 
declare his official incumbency both constitutional and expedient, while he is forbidden 
and it is inexpedient for him to do the work of a Bishopl Are we to understand, that 
as Christianity and Methodism had failed to discredit the Bishop, to the satisfaction of 
the Mojority, it devolved upon the Church to do it! Another view of the subiect con- 
ducts us to the same conclusion. . 

Methodism has always maintained, that all the high moral objects ol the uun.stry 
connect ns essentially with the office of Presbyter as of Bishop. By admitting, there- 
fore as Methodism ahvnvs has, that slave holding may, in given circumstances, com- 
port'with all the relations and duUes of an Elder in the Church of God, it is Ddmitted. 



S7 



when it is made an objection under the same circnmstances in a Bishop, that the 
?s"hu'boas",r'r"' '•' ^^"'^^'^'^"'^ ^«^^°- not disapproved by Heaven, and, he Church 
L r ' T''""''' '' '''''''"- "^ "" ^'^'^"l'- ^^^'-^f i' i^ -n-^-'ed God himself 

does not requ.re of an Elder-bo.h bein, in the same order of the ministrv. Should 
considerations in a matter so .vei?h,y as the ministerial oflk-e be allowed' to control 
a^urch action, while it is admitted the Divine conduct is in no wav influenced by them^ 
in proof of the disposition and purpose of the Northern Division of the Church to med- 
e with the question of slavery beyond all existing warrant of poli.ical orcccle ia - 
teal aw, mark the force of the following language, in one of the principal orJn of 
he Majority-The Western Christian Advocate: "The Methodists have neveX" ta- 
ken any measures to bring t.cfr viercs to bear upon the elections of the country, although 
tin ^ske:r prrnler^c, whenever they moy see Jit to exercise it; and it may be y./.V 
a IS no now. therr duly, to exercise the elective franchise, constitntionallv and legally 
agavut slarery and in /.... of freedom.- The policy ,hus intimated, if'not threateJ-' 

tuZ U^\ .Tf' '" '"•■ " "" '' '""' '' '''-' "•'^>'^-- "- ^'-^-'^ <'f P'-csi. 
c>^nt ot the Lnited Stales, or in an attempt by chancre to destroy the compromise of the 

Feceral Constitution. The election of President, should the incumbent even bea thor- 

ough-going abolitionist, could not be brought "to bear asainst slavery,- except by lat- 

./•^^ methods, and very indirectly, and by no means with certain effect at all, and in 

hlThis ir ''T'" r^^''^^"'^^' ^^ — ' -'PP-e that this was what the editor 

J ad his eye upon, when he penned the monitory sentence we have just quoted. The 
a lusion to have fitness, and be of any force, must have been to the fact formally avow 
ed in other Northern Methodist Papers, that it is not unlikely the three hundre'l ttiol 
sand votes of t e Northern Methodist Episcopal Church ma,, from a sense o "..di.tv ", 
and to satisfy the conscience of abolition and anti-slavery, yet be brought to bear upon 
a hange of the national compact '. against slavery;" that is, receding from the origi- 
nal condition of Lnion, as it regards slavery, and of course dissolving the National 
Confederacy, as all know this would be the result. Unless we have misunderstood this 
and similar intimations, the South can hardly have been premature in deliberatino- upon 
the necessity of separation. ° ^ 

The attempt in the Reply to magnify the state of dread and apprehension in the 
Nort , as it regards a slave holding Bishop, is really surprising. How could the North 
dread, w at they knew they had the power of preventing, by having an actual major y 
of more than two thirds in the General Conference? All the annua] and quarterlv Con^ 
ZToi; t-\""f'" -d individuals who petitioned against the election of a 
slave holding Bishop, knew the whole alarm or excitement on the subiect. if anv had 
originated North, and that there was really, not only no danger, but ^o possibility of 
the e ection of a slave holde-, should Northern men be opposed to the election of one - 
and the Reply maintains, in behalf of the whole North, that such opposition has al ' 
ways been as universal as notorious in every period of the Church's history. The Re 
ply must intend to maintain the legal ineligibility of a slave holder, or else that the" 
legal abstract right, had become a dead letter by the prevalence of Northern opinion 
adverse to law ; and in either case, no real alarm conld have existed North, and we are 
perfectly satisfied none did exist, and that the whole was intended for effect The 
Northern movement was merely intended to present an array of bavonets arrainst'.lave- 
ry, m any and every shape and aspect, and at as many points as po'ssible. Antagonism 
and aggression, in view of the existing order of things nSeciin. slaverv, marked dl the 
petitions presented at the last General Conference. The peLiUoners present no actual 
personalgrievances under which they labor, as creating the right of petition. The nVht 



S8 



exercised is a right of war, and the declaration accompanies its assertion, in the Ian- 
crna-re of the petitions themselves. The Reply claims these petitions as a ground of 
action acrainst Bishop Andrew, he had sinned, not against the law of tlie Church, but 
against Northern "sentiment." But why does not the Reply give us the whole truth 
in the premises, so that what they report might be explained by what they stress? 
Whv not frankly inform the Church, (for they knew it to be true) that a much larger 
num'ber of petitioners than that against a slave holding Bishop, demanded an absolute 
separation of the Church from all slavery and slave holders, in all the forms of the one 
and relations of the other? Why did not the Repliers tell the Church, what they well 
knew that the separation of the Episcopacy from slavery was not the thousandth part 
of what was prayed for] Was it just or candid-did it comport with fair dealing not 
to do so^ Why were these facts separated, "the one taken and the other left? And 
why have the Northern Advocates pursued a similar course? So far as the petitions are 
authority, or furnish motive for action, the Mojority have declared themselves ready to 
unchurch the whoie slave holding portion of the South, provided it is stoutly petitioned 
for If such petitions may be a cause of action in one case, why not in another? 
Does not the silence of the Reply, as to the main object of the petitions, furnish the 
South with just ground of alarm as to their future safety? Why, too. did the slavery 
committee, to whom all these petitions were referred, endorse the policy of such a 
course, by the omission even to intimate, that there existed any difficulty in granting 
all that abolition prayed for? Why such a studied ominous silence? Were they not 
bound to report upon the character of these petitions? Wliy did they fail to do so? 
Why did the committee decline letting it be known, by a full and manly report, that 
the^e petitions could only be granted by new legislation on the subject of slavery, en- 
tirely subversive of existing law? Why withhold all opinion as to the real charncter 
of the petitions, and the reasons and motives of their presentation? Why was all they 
did report, against the South, who had not infringed the Discipline in any respect, and 
in favor of the North, whose movements indicated a fixed determination not to submit 



to it. 



11. 

In one paragraph the Reply tells us, that the vigilant caution of the Church from the 
very institution of Episcopacy, had been directed to the great object of securing its 
purity, bv the exclusion of slavery ; and in another it is indignantly affirmed, that the 
virtuous'dead, North and South, had never drmmed even that such an evil as slavery 
could ever find its wav into the Episcopacy. The logic of the Reply is, that an evil 
never thought of had been vigilantly guarded against for sixty years. If the last state- 
ment be true, what did the caution in question amount to, and of what force is the as- 
sumptioni If the watchful apprehension did exist, as both affirmed and denied, why 
no prohibition of law, as the Reply would show? If Bishops are excepted in the ap- 
plication of a special statute relating exclusively to the rninidry, does not their non- 
inclusion by the law, upon every fair principle of judicial construction, authorize the 
relation, for sustaining which. Bishop Andrew was punished? The Reply assumes, at 
least by concession, that no disciplinary provision-no law of the Church covered the 
case of Bishop Andrew; and it is alleged that the Conference hence treated it as a 
"practical difficulty," for the removal of which they were compelled to "provide.' 
The Majority thus not only admit, but avow their action to be extra-legal ; and if so, 
was it not by lotrical necessity, extra-judicial? But to return; why all this wide 
spread epidemic dismay in the North? There is no legal off-cnce, the Majority being 
judrres, and as a law-abiding portion of the Church, how could they be alarmed^ Un- 
less" they intended going beyond the provisions of law, and thus drive the South to re- 



89 

si stance, why feel uneasy? Moreover, if the Majority, before the emergency in ques- 
tion gave birth to so many rare inventions, regarded themselves as having tlio un- 
doubted rig!)t to displace a Bishop and "give his Bishopric to another," even without 
trial or enquiry, what ground was there for the foreboding apprehensions of the Reply? 
Whether we look at the North, therefore, before or after the knowledge of Bishop An- 
drew's connection with slavery transpired, the assumed alarm and fidgety preparations 
of the abolition portion of the Church, prove the existence of purpose and pre-arrange- 
ment, to disturb the long settled question of slavery, beyond any thing that had pre- 
ceded. Such purpose has been since avowed by the proper representatives of the aboli- 
tion party, and how far seconded and sustained by the anti-slavery party, is sufficiently 
shown in other parts of this Review. The Reply cliargcs, that Bishop Andrew had 
deliberately or heedlessly placed himself in direct and irroconcilable conflict with the 
sentiments of a majority of the Church. In relation to tiiis, we enquire, how far the 
law of the Church may be presumed to reflect its sentiments? It can never be made 
appear that Bishop Andrew's conduct was in conflict with tlve law, and if in conflict 
with tlic sentiments of a majority of the Church, then the law is no index of the opin- 
ion of the Majority, and is in fact an imposition upon the credulity of the law-abiding 
portion of the Church. And further, the Reply itself shows, that without either de- 
liberation or heedlessness, without any will or choice of his own, Bishop Andrew had 
been tlie owner of slaves for many years before his late marriage, and in a State where 
emancipation is not only unlawful, but even the attempt is rendered criminal by the 
laws. Hud he not married, the result in every material aspect of the subject would 
have buen the same. The charge, therefore, is without foundation in the facts of the 
case, the Repliers themselves being witnesses. 

It was most confidently affirmed in the case of Harding, that the only question was, 
was h pradicahle for him to emancipate his slaves? All present will recollect, that in 
debate this was given as the only principle upon which the true issue was to hinge. 
The bare statement, however, to say nothing of the absurdities to which it leads, tor- 
tures and misrepresents both the spirit and language of the law. This, so far from 
being the only question, was but one of three constituting the ?nain question. 1st. 
Was it at all practicable for Harding to emancipate his, or rather his wife's slaves? 
2d. Could tliis be done conformably to the laws of the State in which he lived? And, 
3d. Being in fact and legally practicable, could the liberated slaves enjoy freedom in 
Maryland] Grant that an aflirmative answer ougr.t to be given to the first of these 
questions, still, as such an answer cannot be given to the second and third, the majority 
either of the Baltimore Conference or of the General Conference, had no more right, 
bij the law of the Discipline, to require the emancipation of Harding's slaves, than they 
had to run them off North, by way of giving them their freedom, that is, had no 
right at all, in virtue of the law. That they uprightly believed they had such right, 
at the time of action, is cheerfully conceded in relation to both. 

Another argument in Harding's case seems to have found great favor in high places, 
a3 it may be made, it was no doubt tlionght, to answer the purpose when all others fail. 
It is assumed, that Harding miglit at least have relinquished his own right of property 
in his wife's negroes, and so freed himself from slavery. Beside, Ihat legal contingen- 
cies might destroy this argument altogether, it should be borne in mind that such a 
quasi species of emancipation is utterly unknown to the law of Maryland, and there- 
fore not legal, and of coarse could not in any way have affected the state of servitude 
in which the negroes would still be left. It must have occurred to every one too, that 
such a course would not have met the requirement of the Discipline at all, for the Dis- 
12 



90 

cipline disavows emancipation as a requirement of law, except where the liberated 
slave is permitted to enjoy freedom. The argument in question, however, sophistical 
"IS disingenuous, does not liberate the slave in tact or form, in whole or in part; free- 
dom, therefore, in any sense, is out of the question, and such an act by Harding, would 
have been without the sanction of civil or ecclesiastical law, and could not be approv- 
ed, it seems to us, by humanity or common sense. We are thus driven to the conclu- 
sion, that as the principal conditions of the requirement by the law of the Church, 
were barred by the civil law in Maryland, both the Baltimore Conference and the Gen- 
eral Conference violated the letter and intention of the Discipline, in exacting emanci- 
pation of Harding. The recent showy and confident attempt to make appear that the 
cnndilion respecting the enjoyment of freedom by the liberated slave, does not apply to 
traveling preachers, is utterly set aside and overthrown by the reasoning and construc- 
tion of law in the addresses, both of the Bishops and of the General Conference, in 
1836 and 1810, and especially by the judicial decision of the latter in 1840. in the 
Westmoreland case, and cannot be urged except in direct conflict both with Episcopal 
and General Conference authority. The argument above, therefore, so far as it may 
turn upon this item, remains unaffected by the attempt alluded to, and shows our con- 
clusion to be fairly made out. Harding was suspended contrary to the plain letter of 
the law. That the same was true in the case of Bishop Andrew, we have seen at 
length. 

The bonds imposed upon the Bishop had never existed before they were prepared for 
the occasion. The Majority sought no vindication of violated law, no redress of injur- 
ed right. The true cause of action, was the rifeness of abolition and anti-slavery opin- 
ion and feeling beyond the anticipation, and contrary to the provisions of law. It was 
Northern violation of law which rendered the attempted degradation of Bishop An- 
drew expedient. The Reply labors hard to make it appear, that the Church had al- 
ways declared and acted upon the principle, that the Episcopacy or a Bishop could in 
no event, be allowed to have connection with slavery, and yet Dr. Durbin, in debate 
stated, as did others in substance, -'in passing this resolution wemake a clear declaration 
against the connection of slavery and our Episcopacy, a declaration which we cannot 
avoid making if we would, and ought not if we could — a declaration which the world 
will approve." But if according to the Reply, the declaration was as old as the Church , 
and well understood by every body, why this formality in re-declaring it] The fact is, 
it was a declaration of claim on the part of the Majority, not only in open conflict with 
law, but in utter disregard of trust and confidence created by recent official declarations 
to the contrary. The whole movement shows the party was aiming at the introduction 
of a new principle, and the declaration and principle being both new. it was seen that 
their novelty, not less than inconsistency with existing law, would surprise and star- 
tle, and hence the necessity of explanation, by way of conciliating the Church, in view 
of the new order of things about to be introduced. The real difficulty then, existed in 
others, not in Bishop Andrew, and for tlie wrong of others he was called to suffer. The 
Majority evidently acted upon tiie maxim that the law was behind the age, and that it 
would not do for the Church to be in the same category, and hence the rapid stride, the 
furlong in a breath, with which they moved forward to the accomplishment of their pur- 
poses. It may not be amiss to enquire why the South are charged with pro-slavery, 
without being charged with any specific violation of law? Is it intended to say iho 
law is pro-slavory] Or, if not, and we hnve violated tiie law, why is it not shown 
wherein and after what manner. We do not so treat the North. We show in what 
they have offended and departed from the law and order of the Church. Our char- 



I 



91 

ges are specific, and the proof accompanies them. We invoke attention and chal- 
lencre scrutiny, with regard to the one and the other. Are the scriptures and the law 
of Ihe Church the standard by which we are judged] If tiiey are, those who charge 
us with pro-slavery, must sliow wherein we have offended against these, and failing to 
do so, no other proof is needed to sliow the injustice and malignity of the charge. In 
a word, the wrong inflicted upon the South by the falsehood of the charge, is scarcely 
a greater outrage Than the defamatory manner in which it has been presented. 

A specimen of Northern consistency may be found in the fact, that Bishops Soule 
and Andrew are held to a most rigid responsibility for alledged disobedience to the wish- 
es of the General Conference, in that, the latter, at the instance of the former, consent- 
ed to assist his senior colleague in the labors and duties of his late Southern tour, in 
doincr which, he did only what the General Conference told him to do ; that is, exercise 
Ills own judgment as to the propriety of performing any work or not. For these acts 
Bishops Soule and Andrew are denounced in no measured terms, and it is more than in- 
timated that exemplary punishment awaits them at the next General Conference. 
Meanwhile, Northern writers, talkers, declaimers, editors. Annual and Quarterly Con- 
ferences, leaders' meetings, societies, «fcc., are found impugning the wisdom and ar- 
raicrnincr the action of tlie General Conference in every form of undisguised and scorn- 
fufrebulie, without any intimation of either responsibility or punishment, because, for- 
sooth, it is found practicable to hide the contempt they pour upon the General Confer- 
ence ip this respect, by attempts to defend it in others. Why liability in the one case, 
and immunity in the other? The action of the Conference, on the Plan of Division, de- 
nounced by the North, as absurd and unauthorized, was united in by every member of 
the whole body, except twelve, taking the vote on the 3d resolution as the test vote of the 
body That approved by tiiem in the prosecution of Bishop Andrew, was a strictly 
party movement, on the slavery question, and solemnly protested against by every del- 
egate from thirteen Annual Conferences, beside being opposed by the votes of one halt 
the Delegation from the Baltimore Conference, two thirds of the Philadelphia Delega- 
tion, a majority of that from Illinois, with several others from New Jersey, New York, 
Michigan, Ohio, and Ilock River. Fifteen Annual Conierences condemned the action 
in the'^case of Bishop Andrew ; the vote of one was neutralized by an equal division, 
and five divided unequally. And the result is, upon this most ditficult and delicate 
question, the Annual Conferences confederated in the General Conference, divided six- 
teen to fifteen, the North having a majority of one. It is true the Delegation from Tex- 
as, two in number, divided, as did that of Baltimore; but it was admitted by the Dele- 
gate who voted with the North, that in doing so he did not represent any portion of the 
Texas Conference. The Annual Conferences, therefore, all absolutely equal in their 
ricrhts, divided as above, and those who are now attempting to sustain the action of the 
General Conference, in Bishop Andrew's case, know tliat fifteen Annual Conferences 
disapproved it, while the action, adopting the Plan of Separation, about which we have 
so much pragmatic dissent and turbulent abuse, was not opposed by a single Annual 
Conference, and by only twelve scattering votes of individuals ! And yet we are told, 
respect for the General Conference, as the Representative Council of the Church, com- 
pels the conduct we have under notice ! The conduct of a bare, the leanest possible ma- 
jority, counting by Conferences, is defended with all imaginable zeal and ability, as the 
voice and actio^'n of the Church, and, at the same time, the almost unanimous action of 
the whole body, providing for a peaceable "division of the Church," on "constitution- 
aP' principles, is denounced and libelled as the work of -divisionists"— the project of 
a "Southern clique." 



92 



Since May last, sixteen Annual Conferences have ofllcially endorsed the doctrine and 
positions of the Declaration and Protest, without qualification or exception, and yet 
ever and anon, a knot or club of Northern abolitionists or anti-slavery arrUators num- 
bering scarcely as many individuals, are permitted, in tlie papers of The Chu'rch to 
ban and defame them as a "clique" of schismatic "separatists." If there be any vir- 
tue which can sufler such wrong, such wantonness of injury, without resentment, the 
Soutn certainly stands in need of it. Would we had the patience and meekness of the 
sainted John, who, under similar treatment, was content to say, leaving- the quiet max- 
im to explain itself, "no lie is of the truth." But to return. We wish to know, (to 
restrict the general view, here taken, to a single point,) why Bishops Suule and An- 
drew are to be punished for supposed disobedience to a simple wish of the Majority e.x- 
plained by themselves, to mean anything or nothing, as Bishop Andrew n:iaht happen 
to understand it, or they find it convenient to decide, while Editors and others, equally 
the Agents of the Conference, are promised not only impunity, but even reward, in re- 
sisting an express and binding "regulation" of the General Conference, havino- all the 
force of law? We risk the opinion, that no General Conference, having any respect 
for the decencies, to say nothing of the graver sanctities of judicial procedure, will ev- 
er attempt to arraign Bishops Andrew and Soule for practical dissent from its wishes, 
without, at the same time, arraigning the whole corps of Editorial and other Censors', 
who have been in such officious hr.ste to inform the Church and public, that the Gene- 
ral Conference of 1844 had so damaged the interests of the Church, that their inter- 
ference, in contravention of its action, and contempt of its authority, became necessa- 
ry, to save the Church from ruin ! We have not been unmindful of what will be re- 
torted here, that we of the South resisted the same authority, in the case of Bishop 
Andrew. This is admitted as ostensibly true, but the reader who travels over the 
ground of this discussion with us, cannot help perceiving, with the facts and evidence 
before him, how utterly unresembling are the positions of the parties, and how impos- 
sible it IS to compare them, as standing in anything like the same relation to law and 
right. We resisted the disturbance, by adverse Northern opinion and action, of civil 
and ecclesiastical rights and relations, established both by the law of the land and of 
the Church, and the possession of which had been formally guarantied to us by both. 
Thcnj resist the will of the Majority without any plea of law, or show of right, be- 
yond that of private judgment. They not only nullify law, shown not to be inconsis- 
tent with the constitution, but they destroy the Legislature itself, by the virtual, but 
plain declaration, that no law of ihe General Conference can bind the Church without 
its /or?na2 previous consent. In our case, the reasons of law override its forms. The 
occasion accredits the right of resistance, and we vindicate its assertion by the emer- 
gency of the circumstances under which we act, and hence the difference, both as to 
the moral and the constitutional grounds of action. 

In the instance of the two great points upon which theNortn and Soufli divide, Slave- 
ry and Episcopacy, the Reply, in the first case, denies to Bishops the character of Trav- 
eling Preachers proper; and, in the second, insists they are merely such, with the ad- 
dition of hc'iug laiants at will, as officers of the Genera! Conference. 

The sage induction by which the Manifesto attempts to show that the Protest main- 
tains the General Conference to be a creature of the Episcopacy, is inkeeping with its 
general claim to fairness of argumentation. It is plainly the purpose of the Protest to 
show, that because, according to law, we cannot have Annual Conferences, (and by con- 
sequence no General Conference, unless in extreme cases,) independently of the Epis- 
copacy, it docs not, therefore, follow, that the General Conference is the creature of 



93 

the Episcopacy, aUhough there is quite as good reason for assuming' it, as there is for 
assuming the Episcopacy to be a mere creature of the General Conference. 

The Reply, in pressing upon our notice the uniform repugnance to slavery, in the 
high places of the Church, has signally failed in giving us the true and proper rela- 
tions of "Methodism and Slavery," and exhibits a sad paucity of proof with regard to 
the manifestation of the kind of repugnance so very confidently assumed. Beside the 
many unmanageable facts and perplexing inferences already noticed, tending to discred- 
it the ultraism of the Reply in this respect, there are other items of no niean signifi- 
cance, which ought at least to be explained. The General Conference of 1828 sele'cted, 
with great unanimity, a Southern slave holder as their Representative to the British 
Conference. It is well known, too, that at the General Conference, in I8o2, more tiian 
forty Northern votes were given for a Southern slave holder as Bishop, and given too, 
against a Southern man, proposed for the same office, who was not a slave holder. 
These, and kindred facts, all go to show, that until the recent marriage of abolition 
and anti-slavery, for grave family reasons, (a union of effort for particular purposes, 
as elsewhere seen,) the Church has been in the habit of selecting men for office, and 
appointments of trust, without reference to their connection with slavery, it being well 
understood that no slavery was found in the Traveling Ministry, except under circum- 
stances where, according to law, no forfeiture of right could ensue. All this, howev- 
er, is utterly misunderstood or misrepresenled by the Reply. That Jesse Lee was the 
owner of slaves, when designated by Bishop Asbury for the office of Bishop, and came 
within a single vote of being elected by the General Conference, is, lam informed, sus- 
ceptible of proof. It is also affirmed that he was such, when, at an earlier day, he 
planted Methodism in New England. Bishop McKendree never attempted to disguise 
his solicitude for the election of Thomas Logan Douglass as Bishop, although he knew 
him to be an extensive slave holder, in a State where emancipation was impracticable. 
Southern men, holding slaves, have, at different times, been supported for the Episco- 
pacy, by Northern votes, ever since the organization of the Church. 

The manner in which the Reply repels the charge of '-extra-judicial" proceedings 
against Bishop Andrew, will be recollected by all. The charge is, that Bishop An- 
drew was proceeded against "out of the ordinary course of legal procedure," such be- 
ing the common and obvious meaning of the term ; and the Reply, after denying the 
charge in various forms, takes great pains to show why the Bishop could not'be°dealt 
with according to law, and why it was necessary to meet the emergency "out of the 
ordinary course of legal procedure." The gross fallacy of the pretension, that the 
General Conference has the right to do anything not expressly forbidden, publishes its 
own refutation the moment it is looked at. So soon as we apply it to the division of 
General Conference jurisdiction, this argument of the Majority is, by themselves, de- 
nied as futile. While Bishop Andrew is on the tapis, the "Croton river" overflows its 
banks, but the moment division comes up, it is dried in all its streams. When Episco- 
pacy is in the way, the General Conference has all power, even the sovereign lawlessness 
claimed for it by Bishop Hamline ; but whenever it is shown that such supremacy must 
give to the body claiming it, the right to divide the general jurisdiction of the Church, 
we are instantly informed, as we have been in twenty different shapes, that this right 
belongs not to the Traveling Ministry, hut the 'people— the Laity. The reader, by ad- 
verting to our reasoning elsewhere, will perceive at once, that in theory, this is a rev- 
olution in the government of the Methodist Episcopal Church. It is deprivino- the 
Traveling Ministry of rights and powers always claimed by them, and investing°them 
in the people, where it has always been obstinately contended they do not belong, and 



94 

by whom they cannot be claimed, except upon the principles of a revolutionary radi- 
calism. This concession of the General Conference Press, '-by authority," for tempo- 
rary party purposes, may bo found to contain the seeds, and furnish the type of a des- 
tiny not dreamed of in the philosopiiy of the Majority. What is conceded now, and in 
this case, may be claimed hereafter, and acted upon in others. The argument is a Del- 
phian blade, cutting more ways than one.. When we come to apply it, the General 
Conference is as much the creature of the people as a Bishop is the creature and facto- 
turn of that body. 

The strangely doubtful— the equivoque position in which the resolution of Finley, 
with the subsequent explanation, left Bishop Andrew, made in every practical sense, 
the mere discretion— ihe unll of Bishop Andrew, the sole law of determination, both 
with regard to the moral character of his conduct and the propriety of exercising or de- 
clining to do so, the functions of his office. And yet for adopting the rule of action 
prescribed by the Majority, the Bishop is to be further punished. The Bishops inform- 
ed the Conference, by way of asking for "oificial information," that in their judgment 
they had "no discretion to decide" upon even the kind of relation Bishop Andrew sus- 
tained to the Church. The Conference tell them they are right, they have no discretion 
in the case. The Conference declare all is confided to the discretion of Bishop Andrew, 
and that what he may resolve upon is the law of the General Conference, "whether in 

j^jjy" be may work or let it alone, "and if any in what work" — he may choose any 

work he prefers— "be employed," sees fit to occupy himself, (for no directions are given 
the Bishops,) "is to be determined by his oiim decision and action, in relation to the pre- 
vious action of this Conference in his case." Should Bishop Andrew decide he is sus- 
pended, he may be expected to decide against taking work, although the Conference leaves 
him at liberty to work, should he see proper. Should his "decision" be that the Con- 
ference has merely advised him, and left him to do as he may think best, still the whole 
■matter is left to himself, and the necessary alternative construction is, that the decision 
of Bishop Andrev/ is the law of the General Conference. And the question now arises, 
can the General Conference, with any show of right, punish Bishop Andrew for doing 
what they expressly authorized him to do— that is, work or let it alone, at his own dis- 
cretion. Can he be punished for obeying their own law? Or rather, was not the law- 
such, (the Bishop's own will,) as to render disobedience impossible! And what then is 
he to be punished for? A writer in the Western Advocate, who strikes hut hides the 
hand, informs us the next General Conference will let us know what he is to be punished 
for. This however, can hardly be. When the manifesto was presented to the Confer- 
ence, it contained a very significant menace to this effect, but the Majority refused to 
sanction the amenability of Bishop Andrew in this respect, as assumed by Drs. Durbin, 
Peck, and Elliott, and the latter accordingly proceeded to strike it out. This was after 
the report had been made and was in the possession of the Conference. Other items 
too were stricken out by Dr. Durbin, some icith and some without the consent of the 
committee or Conference. Tliat this was not done, as has been alledged, to oblige the 
South, is perfectly obvious, for many other things pointed out and animadverted upon 
as particularly objectionable, were not stricken out, and it is plain those items only were 
expunged, which it was seen wore indefensible and likely to discredit the argument and 
cause of the ^Majority. 

It can hardly be necessary to call attention to the unfair use which has been made of 
the fact that Southern men, upon a motion from the North, voted to have tlie Reply re- 
corded upon the Journal and printed. The motive of Southern men in doing so, will 
be ncrceived bv all. Th Majority had ordered their explanation of tho action had in 



95 

Bishop Andrew's case, in the shape of an extended report bj' distinguished leaders of 
the party, but were unwilling to assume the responsibility of adopting it. The South 
challenged the Majority to accredit the report, either by its adoption or by attaching 
their signatures to it. Tkcy refused to do eitiier. Wishing to have ready access to it, 
and have the Church made acquainted with it, although notoriously disapprovino- its 
contents, several Southern men voted to record and print it, as a summary of the doc- 
trines and opinions of the Majority, respecting slavery and Episcopacy, which the South 
believes to be alike subversive of the unity and General super iniendency of the Metho- 
dist Episcopal Church. 

The Reply insists that the readiness and unanimity with which the Slajority consent- 
ed to the plan of separation, is a practical refutation of the charge of the Protest, that 
the Minority had been subjected to the party control of a dominant majority. Suppose 
we look at later demonstrations by tlie North. What kind of treatment has the South 
received from the great mouth piece, the government organ of the Northern party, the 
Christian Advocate and Journal, to say nothing of others? We are privately assured 
it is true, from different sources, that it misrepresents bot!i Northern opinion and feel- 
ing, as certainly and even offensively, as all know it to have misrepresented the Gen- 
eral Conference and the South ; still it speaks for the Churcii North, and will, no doubt, 
continue to do so. The perfect silence of book agents, book committees and the North- 
ern Conferences, must, of course, be understood as their endorsement of its policy and 
tactics, and they are accordingly responsible, not for every thing the paper may contain, 
but for its main 'position and obvious purpose in this controversy, as authorized to 
speak^for the Church, and it requires no great discernment to see, that important results 
may follow from the fact, that the original position of the Majority has been denied and 
reiersed, and its public solemn obligations scorned and cancelled by its official oro-an, 
thus rendering it more imperiously necessary than before, that the Southern Conferen- 
ces be independent of the Northern, beside the proof it furnishes of the original neces- 
sity of division. A single fact noticed elsewhere, and that can never be forgotten by 
the South, speaks volumes on this subject. Papers published under the authority of 
the General Conference, have stated distinctly and repeatedly, in the gravest forms, 
that the only reason why the South seeks a separate organization, is because tliey insist 
on having a slave holding Bishop, and cannot be gratified while in union with the North, 
We have shown this statement to be as notoriously false in fact, as it is injurious in 
its purpose and effect. The whole history of the difficulty publishes its want of truth 
not less than the malevolence of its origin, and the express language of the General 
Conference is falsified without disguise, by the imputation. The Conference in provi- 
ding for separation, avowedly acted in view of "various reasons enumerated" in the 
declaration of the Southern delegates, and the only reason of our Editors is not even 
one of the several alluded to, in any sense or shape whatever. The fact is, the Reply 
mistook both the character and temper of the North on this whole subject, unless both 
are miserably misrepresented by the official press. 

Those men who believe all slave holding to be morally criminal, and are resolved to 
rid the Church of .ill slavery in every respect, are infinitely consistent compared with 
those who seem to think slavery involves very little difficulty on moral grounds, but is 
most disastrously evil when it becomes mixed up with the difficult tactics of sectional 
interest and party expediency. The fact is, to be at all consistent, Methodism in all the 
non-slave holding Conferences, must occupy the old common ground of the legal tolera- 
tion of slavery in all grades of the ministry, in States whose laws do not allow the 
emancipation and subsequent freedom of the slave, or must take new ground, and ex- 



96 

elude it from the ministry, and by consequence, as we think, from the membership alto- 
gelher. The Chnrc-h South can admit of no distinction — no inequality of right in the 
ministry, without disreputation and overthrow. Where emancipation is practicable 
without evading or violating civil law, and the freed slave is allowed to enjoy freedom 
in the State of his domicil, should Southern ministers fail to emancipate, let tliom be 
punished. But where this is not the case, and v^'hilethe law of the Church remains as 
it is, we will not submit to punishment of any hind, and it need not be expected of us. 
The old compromise, as we have understood it, is the only ground upon which we can 
stand in the South, and by how far we credit Northern assurances and defer to South- 
ern opinion, it is unlikely we shall ever occupy that ground again. Under these cir- 
cumstances, geographical division, (as to general jurisdiction,) with the exceptions re- 
cognized by the General Conference plan of separation, seems to be the only pacific 
remedy. For this the South, with a greatly less number of exceptions than was ex- 
pected, is ready ; and sliould tlie North, under the influence of counsels, adverse to the 
pledge of the General Conference, refuse to fulfil its contract, the question will be left 
to work out its solution in a different vvay, uninfluenced by Editors or correspondents, 
North or South. We write and talk of union, as if it were matter of choice by the par- 
ties to have it by mere dint of proclamation. But irhere is that of which so much 
is written and spoken, to so little purpose] Soberly, where is our ?i?!io?2? "The North 
saith, it is not in me, and the South, it is not in me!" Split assunder by a moral con- 
vulsion despite ourselves — involuntarily sundered by the throes of an earthquake — 
already apart and each asking what the other cannot yield — clinging to opposing prin- 
ciples vital to existence, as the parties recede from each other; the question is, how 
may the least evil result from what has taken place? No longer one, and finding it 
impossible to agree, is there any reason why we should deslroij one cvioUier, by way of 
proof that we ought not to have been separated? If the ends for which we came to- 
gether, can only be accomplisiied by separation, and this we have solemnly declared as 
it regards the South, and the truth of the declaration is increased by every day's expe- 
rience, v.?hat must be the suggestions of both duty and interest? And what must be the 
inevitable inference as to constitutional competency to divide the general jurisdiction of 
the Church, in an emergency of this kind? On what grounds is it doubted? With 
what show of reason or force of argument can it be questioned? 

The proposed division, so far from exciting political alarm and alienation in the South 
with regard to the North, will tend directly to prevent the one and the other. Five 
thousand ministers and five hundred thousand members South, tamely submitting to 
Northern encroacliment on the subject of slavery, would immediately and beyond doubt 
endanger the union of the States, but when it is seen tliat the rapidly increasing thous- 
ands of Southern Methodists, will not submit to this, all cause of alarm in connection 
with the Ciuirch, is removed at once. If while the civil condition and relations of the 
South are constantly assailed by the Church North, Southern Methodists had not re- 
sisted, but allowed the interference to proceed from one extreme to another, the Metho- 
dists being largely the most numerous denomination in the South, there would have 
been just reason, perhaps, to fear that the South might be driven to means of self de- 
fence, endangering the harmony if not union of the confederacy. Already, however, 
the resistance of the Southern Church has given a tone of confidence to Soutliern feel- 
ing, greatly lessening the danger in question. It is not unlikely, from the present 
signs of the times, and we accordingly predict, that the Presbyterian Church in the 
South, will soon be c<impelled to adopt the course wo have, and that these cxnmples will 
be followed by the Baptist Church, and at a later period by other Churches, in a similar 



97 

separation. If our conjectures should be verified, we entertain no doubt at all that the 
eifect will be eminently favorable to the interest of the National Union. Political abo- 
litionism has been principally sustained in the North, by religious fanatacism and for- 
eig-n interference, and the latter has been brought to bear extensively, as all luiow, 
through the various Churches of the United States. Should, however, the principal 
Churches South, claim separate jurisdiction, as it regards this question, it will deprive 
cgitaiion at once of its principal means and appliances, and a less excited and exaspera- 
ted state of feeling North and South, will naturally exert an influence upon public opin- 
ion and sentiment, highly conservative in relation to the great interests of our common 
country. The abolition influence in the United States, has been inconceivably enhanc- 
ed by the encouragement and countenance of England and the influx of foreigners from 
every part of Europe. A late English writer on this subject says, "that England has 
taken up the trade of propagandism is admitted by our rulers themselves." Another 
affirms that it was for this specific object she "confiscated property to the amount of 
40,000,000 sterling in the West Indies," which did not, in any fense, belong to the 
government, and which having been accumulated under the full and explicit sanction of 
British law, she could not deprive her subjects of without a plain violation of the rights 
of property. Dr. Bangs, speaking of the Northern agitation of "slavery and aboli- 
tionism," says, "this spirit was powerfully excited hy agents sent out from England for 
the express purpose of lecturing us on the evils of slavery. These heedless and enthu- 
siastic lecturers, aroused a spirit of resistance to their measures and proceedings, which 
it was not easy to control. This interference of foreigners with our domestic relations, 
was considered by the more judicious portion of the community, as highly reprehensi- 
ble and worthy of severe rebuke and remonstrance." That an immense mass of the 
American people are opposed to slavery, in principle and feeling, is not disputed, and 
no where regretted or complained of in the South. But it is true at the same time, and 
susceptible of the clearest historical proof, that the whole abolition and anti-slavery 
movement in the United States, for the last twelve years, has been to a very great ex- 
tent anti-American and essentially of Joreign origin. The whole system is largely in- 
debted to foreign influence, both as it regards iis projection and impulse. Nor is this 
true merely in relation to the organized efforts of the anti-slavery and abolition mis- 
sion, as such, but the principle involved and the fact we assume have developed them- 
selves and displayed their relations and affinities, in various forms of political, social, 
and moral misciiief. Public attention and concern have been for years attracted to the 
evil as one of no common magnitude. Thousands who do not deem it prudent.to speak 
or act, leel that the curse is in our midst— that the elements of social degeneration and 
national decay, are at work, with an energy and effectiveness calling loudly for tiie in- 
terposition of public virtue and political foresight. The subject is too deeply painful 
and humiliating to be enlarged upon. 

Look at the annual foreign accessions to our population— look at the lawless disregard 
of restraint among them— a levelling system of agrarianism rapidly extending in every 
direction and fearfully increasing in strength and activity. Even now they constitute 
in various places, formidable castes and parties, caring for nothing but to secure their 
own petty personal interests, and to promote the reckless aims of the unprincipled de- 
magogues by whom they are duped and demoralized. This class of foreigners rarely 
crowd together in the South in masses sufficiently large to affect theinierestsof society. 
The long e3tahli?hed system of slave labor — the kinds and methods of production, and 
the general habits of society, with other causes, deter them. They seek the free States 
of the North, and are found there as ten to one, if not in greater disproportion, com- 



9S 

pared with the South. Foreign influence in this way, has been most unfairly brought 
to bear in the North, upon the question of slavery in the South. For more than half a 
century, without any knowledge of onr political institutions and civil relations, the 
slaves of other nations, have been the legislators of this. Legionary hordes are annually 
emptied out of Europe, in the shape of ignorant, needy, and disorderly paupers, fugi- 
tives, and convicts, every where crowding the cities and districts of the North, officious- 
ly meddling with both the polity and police of the country, and rapidly sapping the 
foundations of its noblest institutions. Placed on their arrival, in direct association 
with the lowest and most depraved part of our own population, and subjected but too 
generally to the drill of debased and lawless leaders, the Botany Bay nf European out- 
casts on this side the Atlantic, is allowed to give character, not only to the law and ma- 
gistracy, but even to tlie manners and morals of the country. \Ve except of course, 
from the application of these remarks, and we do it with the greatest pleasure, all those 
citizens of the United States from foreign countries, many and respectable, who practi- 
cally discourage and discountenance the growing evil of which v.-e complain ; all others 
we include as accessary to the outrage, and inflicting irreparable injury upon the char- 
acter and hopes of the country. 

Among the rare morceaux of the Reply claiming attention, we may notice the attempt 
to make the impression that the Protest denies that Bishop Andrew was really and le- 
gally connected with slavery. The Protest contains no such denial— no intimation of 
the kind, and the statement is negatived both by the language and reasoning in every 
part of the document. The Reply also contains the unauthorized representation, that 
the Protest assumes the ecclesiastical compact existing between the North and South 
to have been a constitutional arrangement in form, and cannot, therefore, be altered or 
revoked without the rea:i0V3l of constitutional restrictions. There is no such idea in 
the Protest. The general law of slavery, as enacted at different times, is assumed, as 
we have proved it to be, a compromise arrangement, in the shape of a common law 
agreed upon by the parties. North and South, and the Protest maintains that the Ma- 
jority of the late General Conference, in disregarding the law, were not merely charg- 
able v.'ith its violation, but also with a breach of good faith toward the Soutii. There 
is no allusion to the removal of constitutional lestrictions. V.'hat the Protest meant by 
charging a violation of the constitution, is fully explained and supported in another 
part of this Review. So far as the constitution is directly applicable to Bishop An- 
drew's case, unless it can bo shown that he bought or sold with intention to ••enslave," 
the constitution, as explained in the 10th section, not only protects him in his connec- 
tion with slavery, but must be disregarded and violated in any attempt to disturb him. 
The Reply attempts to prove Bishop Andrew blame worthy, because a Bisiiop is "allow- 
ed to live where he pleases," and it seems it would have pleased the Repliers and those 
they represent, had Bishop Andrew removed North, and so freed himself from slavery 
by expatriation. It so happens, however, that Bishop Andrew "pleases" to live in 
Georgia, where he resided at the time of his election, and the Discipline, as we have 
seen, takes from the General Conference any right to disturb him in his connection 
with slavery, in that State. And as a Bisiiop is kindly "allowed to live where he 
pleases," no blame can possibly attach to Bishop Andrew for not removinf North. 

Among other tilings found in the Protest by the Reply, which happen not to be tiicre. 
is "the virtual deposition of several Bishops, by a worse than extra-judicial process." 
What was there, but not seen, it would seem by the auth.srs of the Rep'y is, that Bish- 
ops violating the com;)act, tlic compromise law of shivery, themselves, or submittin<T 
without proper remonstrance to its violation by others, cannot be acceptable in the 



99 

South, and need not appear there with such expectation. This we re-affirm in behalf 
of the whole South. We have furnished in these pages, abundant proof that the only 
Bishops the Church had at the time the Protest was written, were fully committed to the 
compromise policy of the Church respecting slavery, and the position was taken in view 
of a possible change of sentiment by some of the Bishops, but especially the probable 
election of one or more to the office, who might be abolitionists. That is, we have no 
more use for such South, than the North have for Bishop Andrew. But to declare an 
abolition Bishop unacceptable in the South is a "virtual deposition," ergo, according to 
Drs. Durbin, Peck, and Elliott, thedeclaration that Bishop Andrew was unacceptable at 
the North, was his "virtual deposition," although the same Doctors stubbornly deny it in 
other parts of the Reply, and maintain that it does not even amount to ecclesiastical cen- 
sure of any kind. An abolition Bishoj) declared unacceptable in the South is "virtually 
deposed," but a Bishop holding slaves by the direct permission of law, may be declared 
unacceptable North, without even the implication of censure! 

Of a piece with.lhe precedmg, is the effort of the Reply to disparage the reasoning of 
the Protest, by charging upon it the assumption, that a Bishop is only responsible for 
criminal conduct. It will be quite sufficient to say that no part of the Protest author- 
izes any such supposition, in whole or in part, directly or remotely. It merely denies 
the right of the General Conference to inflict upon a Bishop of the Church official disa- 
bility of any kind, without due form of trial. Of which more in its place. 

Tlie Reply very warily tries to make it appear, thai the North is satisfied with the 
existing law of the Church on slavery, and seeks no new legislation. That new legis- 
lation on the subject was called for in 1836, 1840, and 1844, none will deny. The call 
was made at each General Conference, by several thousand petitioners, and how does 
the report of the committee of 1844, comport with the declaration of the Reply? The 
report admits the call for new legislation, and does not disapprove it. It is perfectly 
non-committal. Nine Annual Conferences and ten thousand petitioners ask that action 
may be had and results secured contrary to the provisions of existing law, and yet the 
committee say nothing in defense of law and against the attempt at change and innova- 
tion. Was it the purpose of the committee to authorize the inference South, that when 
they thought it cafe to do so, they were prepared to recommend action? Did they intend 
10 invite iiine additional Conferences and twenty thousand petitioners to try it ugain at 
the next General Conference? Why did the committee recommend and the Majority 
find it expedient to endorse the lawfulness of negro testimony against white persons in 
Church trials, by repealing a law which had disallov/ed it in States and Territories 
where negroes were not allowed as witnesses in civil process? Was it believed that 
negro witnesses might be useful auxiliaries in managing the South? The statement of 
the Reply too, is discredited by the counter avowal of some sixty New England traveling 
preachers, who, since the General Conference, have declared themselves in favor of new 
legislation. It is true Dr. Bond and Dr. Elliott are trying to make all believe, either 
that the men in question are first rate, straight forward, trust worthy, laiv abiding Metho- 
dists, and will save the New Englajid Conferences, "sound to the core," or that they 
are but a handful of noisy ultra abolitionists and not worth minding. It dont seem to 
be at all material to the argument which they shall turn out to be. It seems to be 
resolved on, that they shall either keep quiet or be proved to be unworthy of notice or 
confidence. What adverse influence can such men as Crandall, Porter, King, Binney, 
Remington, and a hundred or two like them, bring to bear upon the slave holding por- 
tion of the Baltimore Conference, embracing parts of Maryland and Virginia, and the 
District of Columbia? What has the Philadelphia Conference to fear, although it has 



100 

important slave sections in Maryland and Virginia? What harm will accrue to the 
large portions of Virginia in the Pittsburg and Ohio Conferences? What is there to 
alarm the Northern societies on tlie Southern border in Kentucky and Missouri? 
V/o are assured that all this, working together for good, will pass off pleasantly! 

There are many, and the gravest reasons, on purely conservative grounds, for a di- 
vision of Church jurisdiction, but none for political division, as it regards the Union 
of the States. The Methodist Episcopal Church has done what the General Govern- 
menl of the United States has constantly avowed it had no right to do, for any purpose 
v.hatever ; that is, has required emancipation in States wiiere it is prohibited by law, 
as the condition of Church rights and immunities. Civil government has honorably 
and nobly refused to do what the Church, by ail possible means of agitation and ag- 
gression, is constantly attempting to accomplish. Church auihority is interposed for 
the disturbance of civil right. Now, while the Southern part of the Church remains 
in union with the Northern, it is held responsible for such aggression and disturbance, 
and by so far is distrusted and condemned by public sentiment and feeling. If the 
Churcii. South, however, shall separate, as proposed, with a view to correct the evil, 
it will be conclusive proof that the measures of Northern agitators and divisionists are 
disapproved and resisted as they should be, and Methodism will be allowed to operate 
its appropriate functions. How far the assailants of the action of the General Confer- 
ence, on the subject of separation, may succeed in preventing the intended result, is 
T)Ow uncertain. The General Conference is pledged, by formal stipulation, to what its 
Northern organs say shall never take place, and these organs have pledged the Church, 
North, to courses of action Vv'hich must, of necessity, falsify the most solemn assuran- 
ces of the General Conference. The South has, in no form, resisted the action of the 
General Conference, on the subject of slavery, more directly and unequivocally, than 
have the Northern Church papers the action of that body on the subject of separation. 
The only difference is, we protest and resist on the ground of violated law, as we show 
and prove at length, and they proceed to impugn, disparage, and denounce the Confer- 
ence for acting in the alledged absence of right. Both the Majority and Minority, that 
is. the Conference, acted, in the matter of separation, upon the great principle, that 
wlienever uncontrolable circumstances require changes, as necessary to the adjustment 
of the connexional interests and relations of the Church, and especially the great ob- 
jects of its organization, it must be constitutionally competent for the Church to make 
them. This is one of those self-evident truths connected with social and moral rela- 
tions, about which a thousand denials can never generate a single doubt. Men may 
demur and disclaim, but who can doubt the existence of right in such a case? We 
have seen, that by the constitution and laws of the Methodist Episcopal Church, the 
governing power belongs exclusively to tiie Traveling Ministry. This power is prin- 
cipally wielded through the medium of the General Conference, and indeed exclusively, 
so far as legislative control is concerned. The separation proposed, relates entirely, 
applies only, to the federal relations of the Annual Conferences, North and South, and 
it was deemed competent for the General Conference, as their proper and common or- 
gan of action in the premises, to project and adopt a provisional plan for a division of 
jurisdiction, which would give to two federal representative bodies, separated by fixed 
geographical lines, the power and rights, within the limits of each, respectively, now 
belonging to one. This plan, "mandatory" and authoritative as it is known to be, has 
been set at nought by editors and writers, North, as not binding on any one, however 
stringently Bishops Soule and Andrew are bound by mere "advice." The Commission- 
ers of the North, too, who accepted an important official trust, which allows them no 



101 

discretion, have gratuitously declared their purpose not to fulfil that trust, unless n-hat 
the General Conference expressly provides shall be a "constitutional" division of the 
Church, shall turn out to be a mere "secession!" It is true Dr. 01 in and others, in the 
North, hold a language very different from that under notice, and vehemently and elo- 
quently maintain that the faith and honor of the Majority of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church are deeply and irretrievably implicated, should they refuse or fail to redeem the 
pledge of the plan of separation, mutually agreed upon by the parties. The refusal of 
the North to abide by a plain contract arrangement, entered into by the 07ily r.onstilutional 
means in the power of the Church, u-ill of course render it necessary, should the South 
hold them to the contract, that the matter be tested by other forms of trial. And if 
driven to such a resort, we have full confidence we shall be able to make it appear that 
we have been forced to the issue by a necessity created entirely by the wrong-doing of 
the Majority. That the Northern Conferences have so violated the long established law 
of the Church, both as it regards Slavery and Episcopacy, as to forfeit, in law and equi- 
ty, the rights and privileges of the Methodist Episcopal Church, we have no earthly 
doubt. That the Southern Conferences are the true representatives and assertors of 
the Law and Discipline of the Church, with regard to both, and that this can be made 
appear before any competent tribunal, we have as little doubt. And we deeply 
regret to say, that appearances, at present, indicate that the controversy will only find 
its termination upon such an issue. Should the Church, North, dishonor the pledge of 
the General Conference, and refuse to divide, as per General Conference plan, and thus 
attempt to make the Southern organization, should one be formed, a "mere secession," 
no remedy will be left the South but the issue above. 

Among the unmanly and disreputable shifts resorted to in this controversy, is a re- 
cent attempt at imposition upon the credulity of the Church, by the reckless assertion, 
that a simple division of General Conference, or federal jurisdiction, is an idea of re- 
cent origin in the South— unthought of until lately. To show the notorious and inex- 
cusable want of any show of truth in this statement, it is only necessary to recur to 
the Southern Declaration, in which such separation is specified in terms, as the only one 
thovght of by the South, and to the plan of separation adopted by the Majority, every 
one of whose provisions is conformed to this specif c idea. It has been attempted, too, 
to practice a similar deception, by announcing, that until it was found impolitic to do 
so, the South, with great unanimity, were in favor of expunging every thing from the 
Discipline on the subject of slavery. Beyond the extent to which a feiv exceptions 
qualify the general rule, this charge is as false as the preceding one. The Southern 
Delegations, at New York, resolved, in form, to abide by the Discipline as it was, in 
any and every event. This has been the uniform purpose and avowal of the South, ever 
since, with but very few exceptions. In the instance of avowed opinions on the sub- 
ject of separation, by individuals, popular meetings. Annual and Quarterly Conferen- 
ces, the exceptions to the general rule have been in the proportion of about one in fif- 
ty. To every one in the South, who has suggested a change in the law of slavery, ten 
in the North have avowed a determination to seek a change in favor of abolition. 
Why have not our one-eyed watchmen seen and reported this also? Have their aboli- 
tion affinities become so strong that they can see. South, what does not exist, but turn- 
ing North, arc unable to discern what could not fail to attract, had it not already be- 
come perfectly common? 

The argument, from want of authority to divide, strikes one with surprise, after the 
claim put forth by the last General Conference, arrogating to that body all power, le- 
gislative, judicial, and executive, claiming the right to do any and every thing they 



102 

saw proper, except the very few things placed in custody of the restrictive articles. It 
has, moreover, always been the doctrine of the Church, right or wron^^, that the so/e 
right to govern the Clniroh, in all its diversified interests, belongs to the Traveling 
Ministry, to the exclusion of the Local Ministry and Laity, and tlie doctrine has been 
twice Jormalhj avowed by the General Conference, beside being shown by the very struc- 
ture of the government itself The Traveling Slinistry constitute the government. 
The rights of government accrue to them exclusively, in view of all the legal provis- 
ions connected either with the constitution or the laws. Any rights of sovereignty, 
therefore, predicable of the Church, may, as the Church has always been organized, 
be rightfully exercised by the Traveling Ministry, and, since 1808, by the "Delegates 
of tiie several Annual Conferences, in General Conference assembled." The right to 
divide is an extreme right, incidental to inlierent sovereignty, always belonging to 
those constituting the government ; audits exercise is always lawful, Vv'hen demanded 
by any adequate imperative emergency. If, then, the immemorial doctrine of the 
Church, that to the Traveling Ministry belongs, by conventional compact, all right to 
govern and control, they alone, of course, have the right to determine the question of 
division. The radical claim, recently set up, in various quarters, that the General 
Conference, as the organ of the Traveling Ministry, the government proper, has no 
right to divide a jurisdiction absolutely its own, as elsewhere and otherwise asserted, 
without the consent of the Local Ministry and the people, or rather the assumed right 
of the people to decide the question, is a claim involving a principle wliicii has, at dif- 
ferent times, asvve have seen, received the formal condemnation of the Cliurch, through 
the General Conference. Whatever may be the natural, moral, or scriptural right of 
the people primarily, the doctrine cf the Church is, that by cnnsenlivg to be governed 
by the Traveling Ministry, in the act of entering the Church, all such r;ght was surren- 
dered, and cannot now be claimed, without assuming a radical, revolutionary position 
in relation to the government of the Ciuirch. Tlie only legal right of division belongs 
inconteslably to the General Conference. And this right, in fact and in form, has been 
exercised by the (ieneral Conference, in setting off, by formal enactment and legisla- 
tive provision, the Metiiodist Episcopal Ch.urch in Canada. And to deny the riglit, in 
view of a precedent so perfectly plain and unambiguous, is, to say the least of it, most 
absurdly inconsistent, until it be shown that tiie Canada separation was a "secession," 
and all who favored it "disunionists." It is, further, true, tiiat the Canada case covers 
the entire ground, and involves every principle implicated in the pending divi!>ion. 
Both parties, it is well known, intended to provide for a separation, without another 
meeting of the General Conference. The Plan of Separation aulliorizes the Southern 
Conferences to judge of the necessity of separation, and furnishes the highest warrant 
of the Church for a separate organization, if it be deemed necessary. 

The South asked lliat the Conferences in the slave holding Stales might be set off un- 
der the jurisdiction of a separate General Conference, with a view to prevent the ar- 
ray of the Nortli and tlie South against each other, at every General Conference, (as 
now organized,) on the subject of slavery. A constitutional division of general juris- 
diction was prayed for, all other organic relations remaining the same. It was suppos- 
ed, that, as the General Conference possess^cd full power to make all regulations for 
the welfare of the Cliurch, deemed indispensable, and not inconsistent with the con- 
stitution, that the right of extreme necessity autiiorizcd tiie South to ask, and the North 
to grant the separation in question, and such an arrangement was mutually agreed to 
by tiie parties. It was not thought, by either party, that ihc constitution had made 
provision for such a separation, but by belli, that so far as necessity, in view of the 



103 

good of the whole Church demanded it, it could not be inconsistent with the constitu- 
tion, the primary design of which is to promote such good. Hence, the Conference 
ordered that a "constitutional'- plan of separation should be devised and reported by the 
appropriate committee, which was done accordingly, and was adopted by the Confer- 
ence in due form. The Northern votes in favor of this plan were more than double the 
number given from the South. The North, with almost absolute unanimity, declared, 
that should the Southern Conferences decide in favor of it, such separation of jurisdic- 
tion should take place, in right of such special grant. All the sixteen Southern Con- 
ferences have so decided, and the numerical dissent in the Traveling Ministry has been 
less than one half per cent. The condition, tiierefore, upon which the Majority of the 
General Conference pledged the North to a separation, having been most fully and un- 
equivocally realized, the North is committed to the issue without any possible chance of 
honorable retreat, unless with the consent of the South. That this whole transaction, 
both in its form and subject matter, has been grossly distorted and utterly misrepre- 
sented by General Conference organs, whether viewed on 7noral or legal grounds, is a 
position not likely to stand in need of proof. The almost innumerable statements and 
declarations, that the South proposed to "sepa rate //-om the Church," was understood 
to be a "secession," and to "go off as no longer any part of the Church," are not only 
unjust and untrue, as it regards the Soutii, but a libel upon the ojjicial action of the Ma- 
jority of the late General Conference. The General Conference gravely and explicitly 
instructed the committee of nine to "devise a constitutional plan for a mutual and 
friendly division of the Church'' into two great departments. North and South, in the 
following words : — 

'^Resolved, That the committee appointed to take into consideration the communication of 
the Delegates from the Southern Conferences, be instructed, provided they cannot, in their 
judgment, devise a plan for the amicable adjustment of the difficulties now existing in the Church 
on the subject of slavery, to devise, if passible, a constitutional plan for a rauiual and friendh, 
division of the Church.'' j j 

Here is our warrant. And ler it be noticed— 1st. That it is proclaimed by the Gen- 
eral Conference, that they did not think a constitutional division impracticable. And, 
2d, That, in reporting the plan, under instruction, tiiat it should be constitutional, there 
is no intimation from the committee, or otliers, that it Vv^as not so. If the men who 
adopted the above resolution, and also sustained, by their votes, the plan of separa- 
tion reported by the committee, acting under the instruction given, intended that the 
separation should not be constitutional, and in pursuance of law and order, but in fact 
a "secession," operating a forfeiture of Church rights, as now avowed by official 
agents of the Conference, then we cannot for a moment hesitate, nor do we believe 
public opinion will, in pronouncing it a deliberate fraud practised upon the South, 
against the purposed mischiefs of which the South is amply protected, both by ecclesi- 
astical and civil law. The General Conference is, in the face of Heaven and Earth, 
committed to a ''constitutional" and friendly "division of the Church," mutually agreed 
to by all the Annual Conferences represented in the General Conference. The South 
are no more "divisionists" than the North. The true sponsors of division are the men 
who voted for the resolution, and the report in question, and they are held to the re- 
sponsibility involved. No plea of oversight, with regard to the use of terms, can be 
urged by the Majority, for a Souliiern man, fearing it might create an insuperable diffi- 
culty, moved to strike out the term "constitutional," which the Conference promptly 
refused to do, and by retaining stressed the term, as one to which no little iiiiportanc'e 
was attached. The Majority, therefore, are pledged to the result— a constitutional di- 
vision of the Church, and any and every effort to the contrary, tending in any way to 



104 

prevent such a result, involves the faith and honor of the Conference. The General 
Conference action, as above, binds the CAwrc/j, inlaw, as well as on'^the score of hon- 
or and good faith. It is a plain legislative contract, by the supreme legislative power, 
upon which the South relied and acted, and should the North determine not to keep 
faith in tlie premises, a new issue is formed, and tlie question arises, whether the decep- 
tion attempted to be imposed upon the South does not righlfuUy transfer the identity of 
the Methodist Episcopal Church to the party keepin?^ good faith in the transaction. Dr. 
Elliott and others maintained, (and every man who voted for the resolution and report 
above, must have thought so, or trifled strangely both with his conscience and reputation,) 
that the plan of division reported by instruction could be carried into effect consistently 
with the Scriptures and the Discipline, and of course constitutionally. The Northern 
party are bound to a division, precluding all idea of "secession," if truth, honor, and 
law can bind them, and retreat is impossible, without a sacrifice which must make them 
poor indeed. In all the proceedings in the case, the one distinct intelligible idea, mis- 
understood by no one, was a peaceful, constitutional division or separation of the 
Church. All idea of separation from the Church was distinctly disowned and repudi- 
ated ; and the falsehood of the charge is proved by the express language of the Gene- 
ral Conference, in the shape of authoritative instruction. This position, in view of 
the evidence supporting it, cannot be in the least affected by a thousand denials, how- 
ever painfully unpleasant it may be, to see the truth of history, as found upon the jour- 
nals, and in the debates of the General Conference, contradicted by men, who them- 
selves did, what they affirm was not done at all! That the action of the General Con- 
ference was designed and understood to be "constitutional," is inevitable, however that- 
action may have been perverted and misrepresented since. In the General Conferences 
of 1836 and 1840, it was the opinion of those bodies, with but few exceptions, that it 
was competent for the General Conference, as proposed by the lamented Cox, to set off 
the infant Church of Liberia as an independent Methodist Episcopal Church, as had 
been done before, in the case of Canada. The question of constitutional right, in all 
these cases, is one and the same, and must, certainly, with the advocates of General 
Conference incrrahility, (if not with others,) tend to strengthen our argument. What- 
ever name it may suit Northern editors or writers to give the proposed Southern organ- 
ization, such organization is clearly and irrefutably authorized by the General Confer- 
ence. That body agreed, by stipulations, plain and unambiguous as any requirement 
or prohibition of the decalogue, should the Southern Conferences so elect, to set them 
off and allow them to organize a separate ecclesiastical establishment, as an accredited por- 
tion of the great Methodist family in the United States, into which it should be lawful 
for any member, minister, or Bishop of the Methodist Episcopal Church to enter, with- 
out censure nr dlsahility of any kind. And to deny this, in the face of tne evidence, 
accessible to all, is worse than fatuous. It is true the plan contemplates a change of 
the Gth restrictive article, in order to a division of the funds, and the consent of the I 
Annual Conferences, to this effect, is recommended by the General Conference, but no 
such consent is made necessary by tiio plan to legalize the organization, should the 
South find it necessary to orginize. If the three fourths vote of the Annual Confer- 
ences is not obtained, it only affects the fur.d question, without, in any way, vitiating 
tiie general movement. Should the South see proper to organize without such security, 
the risk of course is incurred by the South, as to the fund, but the arrangement, as a 
whole, remains unrsffected by the failure. The fact is, there will be no risk finally, as 
several of the Northern Conferences will, at their first meeting after the formation of 
a separate Southern connexion, if they redeem the pledges they have given, vote for 



105 



the change of the restrictive article, and so rer,.ove the difficulty. So far, there ore, no 
obstacle exists to the new organization. It is urged, however, that the -S^ts c laame , 
upon the basis of the contract, have been forfeited by the S.>uth, because SouU em pa- 
pers, meetings, &c., have held severe language with regard to the North. Tins may 
be true, but as equally severe language has been held by the North against the South 
any tolerably fai^ examination of this matter, wUl satisfy any one that there as be n 
Jae as much forfeiture of right North, as South. If th>s vzew of the subject shou d 
ever assume the shape of a duect issue, it will not be difficult to show on wh.ch s de 
the line truth and facts have suffered most from distortion and misrepresentation 
Such a plea can avail nothing. The charges of the South against the North are in the 
Protest, and were formally preferred before the plan of separation was agreed to^ A 
war of editors and writers cannot affect the legal position of parties. Ihe plea, to 
lave presented even a show of reason, should have been ong.nally urged upon the 
g old of the Protest itself. We are strongly persuaded the Northern Conferences 
generally, would be unwilling to resort to such a plea, however partizan advocate., and 
perhaps a few Conferences, may be induced to turn it to what account they can. 

Were the Local Ministry and membership admitted to a participation in the legisla- 
tion and government of the Church, by its constitution and laws, the proposed division 
luhouttteir consent, would, it is admitted, vitiate the whole procedure, ^u - J -j 
cannot affect either the cccle.iasliral or legal rights of the parties. We speak of hing 
s they are, not as they ought to be, if any should think them not right. Not only h s 
the General Conference twice formally declared that all such right, as to Local Preach- 
ers and the people, is barred by the conslUuUon, but these bodies themselves have glo- 
ried in proclaiming that they have no such right as that assume f-/'^!- -/^;;;|;- 
n.ent to which we are replying. That any, all constitutional right of the kind i. denied to 
any portion of the Church, except the Traveling Ministry, see report o the General Con- 
feience of 1824, also, Dr. Emory's Report in 1828, Dr. Bond's Appeal and o her docu- 
mentson the same subject, published by authorify of the Church, in all which it is de- 
finitely assumed that the Local Ministry and Laity have barred their natural right, if 
they ever had any, to all participation in t}.e governing porcer ^^^ C^^/^J' ^^ J?' 
rentional arrangement, and that loyalty to Methodism, the peace and good of the Church, 
and especially The existence and success of the general itinerant system imperiously 
enu ^ at t e, should not seek to disturb an organic adjustment, so vital to the in- 
ere stsof all concerned. Noro, however, the Northern Majority are attempting to 
ouse. and exci.e to action, the stupendous popular force which it was th.^ conten ed 
would inevitably destroy the Church. Why this change Is ^^ pr-ciple o poh y 
Is the old doctrine discarded, or is it a mere ruse, intendea for temporary effect when 
e o d order of things is to be re-asserted^ The true question is, have the confedera- 
n. Annual Conferences a right to say. by their Delegates in General Con erence as- 
embied. urgent reasons demanding it, that instead of a single federal jurisdiction as 
now by -Ins of one General Conference, they will divide this jurisdiction into 
"he ne North and the other South, and let two General Conferences, -th equal poves 
and privile.es, within their respective limits, be the organs of federal ac ion, instead of 
one as heretofore] And, as the Local Ministry and membership have always been ae- 
M tlX'^t of representation, both in the Annual Conferences and the General Con- 
fei, we are curious to know how the Majority, without a change of organic law. 
an invest them with the right to resist the action of the one and the other upon the 
question of dividing a jurisdiction from which iAey have always been carefalyea:clu- 
LT How does it happen that the concurrence of these portions of the Church, denied 
14 



106 

all participation in the government, by the constitution and the laws, is now necessary 
to the constitutional action of bodies officially declared to be independent of them, by 
conventional compact, in their right to govern the Churcli? Did the proposed separa- 
tion affect the moral ];iws of Methodism, or the moral relations and interests of Meth- 
odists, as Church members ; did it involve any change as to fa ilh or morals, ordinan- 
ces or ceremonies, did it touch the elements of christian character or fellowship, did it 
propose any material change of government or discipline, the case would be different, 
and the primary moral rights of the great body of the Church would stand out with 
commanding appeal. But nothing of the kind is proposed. It is simply a modal change, 
affecting only a single feature of government. All the moral laws and the Discipline 
of the Church remain untouclied. The Annual Conference system and the Episcopacy, 
the Itineracy, and, in a word, the whole moral and ecclesiastical machinery of Metho- 
dism are to remain as before. The only change thought of by the Southern Delega- 
tions in the late General Conference, was a division of General Conference jurisdic- 
tion, leaving all else unaffected by the change. This, and this only, is specifically set 
forth in the Southern "Declaration." And this, and this only, is specifically responded 
to in the "constitutional" plan of division adopted by the General Conference. And 
the truth of history, the irresistible evidence of facts, intelligible to the plainest un- 
derstanding, will not belong in making it appear, that those who, under the simulated 
pretence of defending the General Conference, have represented the South as aiming at 
the disruplioji of the Church, and a separation from it, either do not understand the 
subject themselves, or are resolved that others shall not. They are either ignorant of 
the facts in the case, or perversely misrepresent them, with intention to deceive. We 
state what we know many North, as well as South, avow themselves compelled to be- 
lieve. How far men may rely upon their own pre-conceptions and prejudices as cor- 
rect, and proceed to affirm and dogmatize upon such authority, without examination, and 
thus falsify the truth of history, and even the publicity of official acts and records, 
without intendivg to do it, is a matter about which we shall not pause to specujate. 
Those interested can solve the question at their leisure. Meanwhile, the evidence ac- 
cumulating upon the subject, may, at no distant day, form an element of history as cu- 
rious as it will be valuable, and a chapter certainly not more humiliating than it will 
be found irrefutable. The North arranged, approved, and adopted the plan of division, 
conjunctively with the South. They had a majority of two-thirdsboth in the committee 
and the Conference. That their honor and good-faith are pledged to carry it into effect, is 
a position faw, it is believed, will be prepared to question. They cannot recede with 
any claim to truth or fairness. The act was a stipulation m form, and cannot be re- 
called. It is matter of history, and cannot be denied. The plan of separation is a 
plain contract, and any attempt to evade it, by either party, would involve shameless 
dishonor. The Majority arc bound, if they can be bound by any pledge man can give 
to man. All who attempt to frustrate and defeat the plan agreed upon, are at least, resist- 
ing the action of the General Conference. The opposition to the plan, ostensibly urg- 
ed upon the ground of constitutional difficulties, commands respect, so far as these dif- 
ficulties are pointed out, and assume the shape of argument, and it has been our aim, 
in this discussion, to meet and dispose of such difficulties with fairness and candor. 
The outcry and declamation we have nad on this topic, are perhaps best answered by show- 
ing in how many ways those who are thus trying to excite alarm, have eiiher so offend- 
ed themselves, or have witnessed the viulatii.n of the constitution and laws of the 
Church, by others, without any apparent sense of obliquity or disapproval. But too 
many have furnished evidence that their difficulties, in this rejpect, are strangely one- 



107 

sideJ, and connect with whatever contravenes their wishes. For example, the doctrine 
of the Majority, as represented by the Reply, and also by Bishop Hannlineand others, 
is, that it is constitutionally competent for the General Conference to do any and every 
thing not forbidden by the restrictive rules, and by taking this broad position, which 
they cannot deny, ir is declared competent for the General Conference to authorize, as 
they did, a separate Southern organization, as all know this is not denied to the Con- 
ference in the restrictive rules. Their own exposition, therefore, of constitutional 
right, is at war with the present doctrine of the party, unless misrepresented by their 
own official organs. 

Among the many logical fatuities brought to view in this controversy, may be ranked 
the attempt to show that the term separation, in the plan adopted by the General Con- 
ference, was used to denote not what it properly means, but "secession." The mean- 
ing of the terra will be determined at once by an examination of the "declaration" of 
Southern delegates— the resolution of instruction and the report of the committee of 
nine, adopted as the plan of separation. In their brief and unpretending declaration, 
the delegates from the Southern Conferences simply inform the General Conference "that 
the continued agitation of the subject of slavery and abolition, in a portion of the 
Church, the frequent action on that subject in the General Conference, and especially 
the extra-judicial proceedings against Bishop Andrew, must produce a state of things 
in the South, which renders a continuance of the jurisdiction of this General Confer- 
ence over those Conferences inconsistent with the success of the ministry in the slave 
holding States." The obvious and only meaning of this language is, the Southern Con- 
ferences cannot succeed in the great objects they have in view, while controlled by the 
abolition and anti-slavery majority of the North, and the reasons why they cannot, are 
clearly specified. Is there any thing revolutionary or schismatic in this? Does the 
declaration lack manliness or moderation of either tone or temper? Upon this declara- 
tion the committee was raised, and acted under the following instruction : Resolved, 
That tlie committee be instructed, to devise, if possible, a constitutional plan for a mu- 
tual B.ud friendly division of the Church." That is, a "division of the Church" so far 
as prayed for— releasing the Southern Conferences from the control of the Northern 
majority, by allowing them a separate organization. Both the declaration and the reso- 
lution are in strict conformity with the closing sentence of the Protest, "it is believed, 
it will be found practicable to devise and adopt such measures and arrangements, pres- 
ent and prospective, as will secure an amicable division of the Church upon the broad 
principles of right and equity." Thus showing what kind of division only was had 
in view. The committee did not ask to be released from the instruction given. They 
did not intimate that they could not perform the duty assigned them. They reported 
under the binding control of the instructions received, without giving notice in any 
form, that they had found it either necessary or expedient to swerve. If they did not 
intend their report as a "constitutional plan for the division of the Church," they be- 
trayed a solemn official trust and deceived the Church North and South. The Majority, 
when they had it perfectly in their power, refused to release them, as we have seen, from 
the "constitutional" restraint ; and under these circumstances, they cite the thirteen 
Southern Conferences as representing in their Declaration, "that for various reasons 
enumerated, the objects and purposes of the Christian Ministry and Church organiza- 
tion, cannot be successfully accomplished by them, under the jurisdiction of this Gen- 
eral Conference as now constituted.'' Showing that the sole difficulty was connected 
with the federal jurisdiction of the General Conference, and that a division of this so 
as to place ui from under the oppressive control of abolition and anti-slavery, was all 



108 

that we prayed for. Hence the committee say, "in the event of a separation — a con- 
tingency to which the declaration asks attention, as not improbable, we esteem it the 
duty of this General Conference, to meet the emergency with christian kindness and 
the strictest equity," So also, "should the Annual Conferences in the slave holding 
States, find it necessary to unite in a distinct ecclesiastical connection, the following rule 
shall be observed with regard to the Tiorthern boundary of such connection.'' It is a 
geographical division, in view of securing a separate and independent jurisdiction in 
the South. The report decides that all Societies, Stations, and Conferences, belonging 
to either side of the lino of separation, shall so belong by simply "adhering by a vote of 
a majority." If so to adiiere South is ''secession," why not North, as precisely the 
same expression is used in both cases? So "adhering" tliey are to remain under the 
unmolested pastoral care of the Church "adhered" to. Ministers on either side the line 
are expressly forbidden to attempt, in any way, tiie formation of Churches or Societies 
upon the other. "Interior charges s/ia/Z ire aZZ cases, be left to the care of i/iffi Church 
within whose territory they are situated." "Ministers, local and traveling, of every 
grade and office in the Methodist Episcopal Church, maij as they prefer remain in that 
Church, or without blame, attach themselves to the Church South." Thus most clearly 
showing that the Southern division was to be recognized as a Church proper, not less 
than the Northern^ The report calls the boundary "the line of division." It speaks 
of the proposed Southern division, as "a distinct ecclesiastical connexion" — "the Church 
in the South — the Southern Church — Church South — that Church — the Southern organi- 
zation — the Church so formed — the Conferences South." The latter even after separa- 
tion, are recognized as rightful claimants for a portion of the chartered fund. The di- 
vision of the book concern is a transfer upon the ground of admitted claim. Now is 
it possible that all this could take place among men of sense and upright purpose, if it 
bad been intended the South should be a ''secession." We regard it as impossible. 
Meanwhile we have seen that nothing has occured since, to change, alter, or nullify in 
any way, the stipulations binding the parties. The general view we have taken is fully 
and fairly sustained by the debates. Dr. Elliott said of the plan, that "it would insure 
t!ie purposes assigned, and would be for the best interests of the Church — was a proper 
course for them to pursue in conformity with the Scriptures — all history did not furnish 
an example of so large a body of christians remaining in such close and unbroken con- 
nection ; it was found ?7eces.sa/-v//o separate ; the Churches at AntiocI), Alexandria, and 
Jerusalem, were as distinct as the Methodist Episcopal Church would be if the sugges- 
ted separation took place; to this conclusion they must eventually come ; the measure 
contemplated was not schism but separation for their mutual convenience and prosperi- 
ty." Rev. Mr. Griffith, hostile to the whole plan, urged among other things, that it 
gave no choice to interior charges, "if they wished to be members of the Methodist Epis- 
coval Church, whether it should be the Southern or the Northern." Dr. Paine, Chair- 
man of t!ie committee, spoke of the South as likely to find it necessary to "carry out 
the provisions of this enactment" — of a Southern "convention" resolving on an "organ- 
ization" in accordance with the provisions of the report; the measure had been con- 
cocted in the spirit of compromise and fraternal feeling, in the hope of preventing agi- 
tation and schism." Dr. Luckey said "he regarded the resolution, (the first,) as pro- 
visionary, providing in an amicable, proper way, for sucli action as might hereafter bo 
necessary ; if the separation were necessary, it ought to be amicably and constitution- 
ally effiscted, and ihere was no intention of doing it otherwise. Mr. Wesley saw it 
necessary to permit the connection in the United States to separate." Dr. Bangs says 
of the committee, Wwg a mcnaber of it, "they were instructed by a resolution of the 



109 

Conference, ^otiJ to act in the premises. They were to provide for separation, if they 
could do so constitutionally — they had presented this report, from which the Conference 
would see they had at least obeyed their instructions and had met the con stitutiimnl diffi- 
culty, by sending round to the Annual Conferences, that portion of the report which re- 
quired their concurrence, The Laws, Discipline, Government, all would be the same. 
The South asked a separate Conference, adapted to the institutions of that portion of the 
country." Rev. Mr. Fillmore, another member of the committee, remarked significant, 
ly, "Methodism, as the child of Providence, adjuyts herself as she had always done, to 
the circumstances of the case ; she proposed that if these fears (of the South,) proved 
well groum]ed, t.hey divide into lands, and go on spreading holiness through their res- 
pective territories; the plan simply makes provision for such "contingency." Rev. 
Mr. Finley could see nothing '■^unconstitutional'''' in the plan. "The parties stood pre- 
cisely alike — there was a great gulf between them and he wished there was middle ground 
on which both could stand. Mr, Wesley separated the American from the English 
Church; the General Conference gave the Canada Conference liberty to do just what 
they now proposed to do with the South ; wo are now doing nothing more than ive did 
then. Bishop Ilamline, also of the committee, alluding to the first resolution, which 
gives character to all the rest, said, "the committee thoughv it could not be objected to 
on the ground of constitutionality. He for one, would wish to have his name recorded 
affirming them to be brethren, if they found they must separate. The article referred to 
the Annual Conferences had not, necessarily, any connection with division as agreed by 
all." Rev. Mr. Porter, one of the committee, said, "the time was coming when separa- 
tion must tnke place. The difficulty v/asg^rea/er now than it was four years ago, and 
would increase." Dr. Winans, of the committee, declared, "the only proposition was 
that they (Sjuth.) might have liberty, if necessary, to organize a separate Conference, 
and it was important that they should know at an early period, that they had such liber- 
ty." Finally, hear Drs. Durbin, Peck, and Elliott : "The proposition for a peaceful 
separation, has already been met by the General Conference, by a vote which would 
doubtless have been unanimous but for the belief that some entertained of the unconsti- 
tutionality of the measure;" thus declaring that the General Conference had made what 
was regarded by nearly all, as a "conslitutionar' provision for the separation of North 
and South, into two distinct ecclesiastical connections. 

A recent perversion of the facts of history, in the Western Christian Advocate,":is 
worthy of notice in this connection. It is broadly affirmed that the committee, upon 
Dr. Capers' resolutions, took the ground that no division of the Church, as to General 
Conference jurisdiction, could take place constitutionally, and the inference is thence 
pressed, that a constitutional separation of the Northern and Southern Conferences, 
could not have been thought of in the instance of the plan finally adopted by the Con- 
ference. In reply, it will be proper to observe: 1st. That the plan of Dr. Capers was 
that of an individual, and was brought forward by the Dr. upon his own responsibility, 
without the knowledge or concurrence of the Southern Delegations. It was a proposi- 
tion from Dr. Capers to the North and South equally. The committee very generally 
agreed, that the subject coming up in this form, presented serious, if not insuperable 
difficulty. It must not be overlooked, that the proposition from Dr. Capers preceded 
the Southern declaration, which gave a new aspect to the whole subject. And we now 
state what will be abundantly proved whenever it is necessary, that leading men of the 
Majority, in and out of the committee under notice, assured Southern Delegates, in and 
out of the committee, that the question of separation could not be approached by the 
General Conference, safely and constitutionally, except upon a declaralion of gritvaiice 



110 

by Ihe Southern Delegations, and assured us if such declaration were made, it would be 
in their power to, extend to us the relief prayed for, that is, that the Southern Conferen- 
ces might be from under the control of V.,e Northern Majority— this being nil we want- 
ed. Upon the basis of this assurance, a brief, informal, but explicit declaration was 
presented, and the well known committee of nine appointed, and instructed to report, if 
practibable, a "constitutional plan" for the "division of the Church." It was too, to 
be a "?nw/«a? and /WcHr^/i/ division." The constitutional difficulty as to power and right, 
was presumed to be removed by the declaration, which placed the proposed separation 
on the ground of necessity, as the great objects of the ministry and Church organiza- 
tion could not, in the South, be carried on without it. The actual grounds of the ne- 
cessity being set forth in the declaration of thirteen Annual Conferences, was supposed 
to change entirely, the constitutional aspects of the question, and give the committee 
and Conference right and power beyond any tiling presumed by either party, in the case 
of Dr. Capers' resolutions, and hence the instruction given to report a "constitutional 
plan." It follows, therefore: 2nd. That any attempt to infer the allodged unconstitu- 
tionality of the plan adopted, from the opinions of the committee respecting the plan of 
Dr. Capers, is unfair and unauthorized, in view both of the logic and the facts of the 
case. The grounds of action being essentially different in the two cases, the reasons 
and motives influencing men of sense, cuuld not Iiave been the same, and accordingly 
what was deemed unsafe and impracticable in the one, was agreed to as safe and advi- 
sable in the other. And the whole objection being thus obviated, the preceding reason- 
in^ remains in all its force, in favor of the constitutionality of the plan of separation 
ViS^proJecled and sanctioned by the Majority. Bishop Soule, speaking of Finley's resolu- 
tions, says, "not a doubt remained with me. that the adoption of the resolution would 
result in a division of the Church:' He adds, "measures were finally adopted by the 
Conference, providing for a peaceful and equitable separation between the North and the 
South." Dr. Olin says, "the piovisional plan of the General Conference was avowedly 
based on an anticipated necessity expected to result from the state of public senti- 
ment at the South, and from the peculiar relations of the Southern Church to existing 
institutions. The only wish expressed or manifested was tliat the two great divisions 
into which our Israel hereafter must be organized, should occupy positions the most fa- 
vorable to the discharge of their high obligations to the world and its Saviour." This 
is a faitiiful report of what actually took place. It is a statement strictly conformed to 
the facts of the case, and future developements wilh'sustain its truth, despite a thousand 
malignant editorials and other efforts vainly attempting to make it appear that the South 
was to leave the Church as a secession. Every true friend of Methodism will read the 
following burning sentence from the same pen, with prophetic interest: "I shall look 
upon the'' Methodist Episcopal Church asforever dishonored— I shall look for somesigjial 
mark of the Divine displeasure, if after sufficient time has elapsed, to test the insuffi- 
ciency of all plans of compromise, she shall decline to adjust on equitable terms, all the 
quest'ions that must arise from the separate organization^ There is one other view of 
this subject, to which we should call attention. Great consequence has been attached 
to an argument against division, on the ground that unless the Annual Conferences, by 
a three fourths vote, shall authorize the General Conference, that body has no right or 
power to act at all in the premises. This argument is good for nothing, because it can- 
not apply, unless it can be shown, that the question of separation is covered by the res- 
trictive rules, and as this will not be attempted, it further follows that it was entirely 
and constitutionally competent for the Annual Conferences to act as they did, through 
their representatives "in General Conference assembled." As the separation proposed 



Ill 

is not prohibited by the constitution nor by law. and the General Conference has full 
power to make rules and regulations necessary to the common welfare of the Church, 
if that body believed separation necessary to huch welfare, (as they must have done or 
would not have provided for it,) the claim of constitutional right seems to be a neces- 
sary inference, and thus strengthens the general argument. 

Moreover, this whole question as to constitutionality, is varied by the peculiar char- 
acter of its subject matter. Were it a question of either faith or morals, properly, 
(although not included by the restrictive rules) we should be inclined to prefer (not- 
withstanding constitutional right) that the Annual Conferences, rather than their Dele- 
gates in General Conference assembled, should settle it. (A novel dodrine or practice 
not inconsistent with the "Articles of Religion" or "General Rules," would be of the 
kind we mean.) But such is not the character of the question. The true original is- 
sue between the parties is, a difference of cpininn, political and religious, as to'the law- 
fulness and conseijue7it moral character of a civil relation, created and protected by the 
supreme and municipal law of the country; and the right, further, of ministers and 
members of the Methodist Episcopal Church to sustain this relation, without detriment 
to their other relations and interests, whether as citizens or as professors of Christianity. 
On this question the Nation and tlie Church, as the general rule, divide territorially, as 
the States admit or exclude slavery. The slave States being a minority, and the same 
being true of the Southern division of the Church, both originally refused to leave this 
question unsettled, and to be at any time determined by the Majority, and sought pro- 
tection, the first by the treaty provisions of the federal constitution, and th/second, 
by attempts from time to time, as fully shown in these pages, to procure the enactment 
by the Church, of such conservative and permanent laws, as would be most likely to 
secure to the South the ends of social justice. As therefore, it is the first and most 
fundamental function of every constitution, to achieve the objects of the organization 
to which it relates, and the moral unity and enlarged influence of the Church must rank 
among these, if it be found, as no one can doubt, after the solemn attestation of six- 
teen Annual Conferences, tli.it the course of the Majority, (being little more than one 
half of the Church,) must necessarily injure and depress the Minority, we repeat, 
these things being so, the right of remedy must accrue under the constitution, even 
where the consent of the Majority is wanting. Wc introduce this argument to show, 
that were the Church North to adopt the malign advice of its public organs and special 
agents, and attempt to drive us off as a secession, it could not do so. Not having vio- 
lated any law of the Church, as even our revilers admit, and not intending any chango 
with regard to its Faith, Morals, or Discipline, the constitution protects us and we rest 
secure. In the event we are treated by the North as threatened by the conspiracy of 
the Press against General Conference authority and Southern interests, beside the 
means of redress left us, we shall have the proud and cheering cons^-iousness of high 
vantage-ground in being chargeable with no Punic stain in retreating from theoblig'a. 
tionsof a plain public engagement, or trifling with the sacredness of a grave, oftickl 
trust. In such a cause, and so sustained, we can afford to suflTer. 

The civil condition and relations of the societies in North America, are assigned by 
Mr. Wesley as the ground of "separation" between the British and American Metho- 
dists. The same reason specifically was assigned in the instance of the Canada "sepa- 
tion." In both these instances, the Church was "divided" by the highest authority in 
it. If the reader will turn to the Declaration, Protest, and Debates? so often alluded 
to, he will find that a precisely si7nilar reason is urged as the sole ground of the sepa- 
ration now pending in the Methodist Episcopal Church. It is asserted, however, that 



112 

there is "no necessity of division," and it will bo proper to notice by whom and upon 
what grounds this is assumed. Did the General Conference leave the question of ne- 
cessity to be determined, as it has been by the dogmatism and impertinence of the 
Pressi The "Southern Conferences" were constituted the judges by express enact- 
ment and stipulation in the plan of separation. The sixteen Southern Conferences 
have decided the question with unprecedented unanimity. The question has been set- 
tled bv the tribunal to which the General Conference referred it, and of course by the 
only one having any right in the premises. The "Southern Conferences" had hy con- 
sent and contract, of parties, the sole arbitrement of the question. Any attempt, there- 
fore, to control the result by Northern interference, is not merely a gratuitous meddling 
with the subject, but a breach of good faith. Certainly when the General Conference 
left the decision wholly and absolutely with the Southern Annual Conferences, and 
pledged themselves to abide the result, it was not expected that the intrusive dictation 
of the Press would thwart their purposes, by appealing the case to a different tribunal. 
The defence of the action of the Majority in their course against slavery was to be 
expected, and is not excepted to on the ground of right, but the attempt as we have ex- 
plained at length, to defend the action of the Conference in this case, and yet rmpugn 
and set it aside in the other, although equally bound to defend both, is such a manifest 
abuse of official trust, such an outrage offered to the good sense and virtue of the ap- 
pointin<r power, that but for the high state of party feeling in relation to the S<)uth, 
such official malversation would not be tolerated for an hour. It is really grateful to 
be able to turn from the gross injustice thus done, not less to the South than to the 
North, and attend to the rational and manly decision of Dr. Elliott : "We are persuaded 
distinct organizations must exist in the nature of things, in the Methodist Episcopal 
Church in the United States, and that Jiecessity and scripture principles v.' iW 7 net it ably 
enforce them. We believe that the unity, purity, power, and extending influence of 
Methodism, may be promoted by these means." So thought Wesley when he set off 
the American societies as a distinct organization. So thought the British Connexion 
in givin<r the Irish Conference distinct organic being. So thought the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church in setting off the Canada Conference as a distinct organization. So 
thouo-ht one hundred and forty seven members of the late General Conference against 
twelve, in relation to the proposed Southern organization. That the right and power 
to declare, by consent of parlies, one portion of the Methodist Episcopal Church an 
independent and separate organization, with regard to every other, have been assumed 
and exercised by the General Conference, and acquiesced in by the whole Church as 
constitutional, can only be doubted by those who arc ignorant of the facts. No so- 
phistrv can misconstrue the following resolution of the General Conference of 18:28 : 
*^Resohed, That the compact existing between the Canada Annual Conference and the 
Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States he, and hereby is dissolved, by mutual 
consent." If the "compact" between one Annual Conference and the Church, can be 
constitutionally "dissolved" by the General Conference, it can be done in relation to 
any number, as the compact in every instance is precisely the same. Tiie General 
Conference avows the adoption of the above resolution in view of a "separate Church 
establishment," which the Conference expressly acknowledges to be (in prospect) a 
Methodist Episcopal Church, and the Bishops are requested to ordain a Bishop for the 
new "Conncclien," so called by the Conference, and no reasoning can invalidate the 
conclusion that the action of the General Conference in this case, based upon the decla- 
ration and request of the Canada Conference, gave birth to the "Methodist Episcopal 
Church" of Upper Canada. How fully and forcibly this applies to the separation of 



113 

tha Southern Conferences, will be seen by all. The reasons in both cases originate 
entirely in a necessity created by civil relations and interests, and are therefore, essen- 
tially the same, so far as principle is involved. But notwithstanding' all this editorial 
dictation, in defiance of General Conference action and avowal, as we have shown, in 
utter disregard of the facts and the evidence in the case, in perfect contempt of their 
own glorified majority theory, and the men who employed them as their representatives, 
by electing them to office, in defiance too of their virtual pledge to sustain the body at 
whose hands they accepted office ; despite all these, if Editors could be believed, we 
are to be a "secession," or else (unlike Editors) submit to whatever the majority may 
choose to impose upon us. It would be no difficult task to take the leading postulates 
and general reasoning of some of our Northern papers, and prove the Editors of them 
to be '-seceders" from the Methodist Episcopal Church, to the full extent it is possible 
to believe what they offer in the shape of premises and conclusions. By every argu- 
ment they offer, proving us to be seceders because we resist the will of the Majority, 
they publish themselves as such, inasmuch as they are doing the same thing. The 
cases we know are not exactly similar, but the circumstances making them differ are 
in our favor, as elsewhere shown. We gave notice to the Majority, by formal protest, 
before the action of the Conference was Jinal, that we would not submit. Did onr Ed- 
itorial Nullifiers of General Conference action, cither before or after their election, 
inform the Conference that they should resist its will? Had this been so, who does not 
know that no one of them could have been elected? Holding the principles they r.ow 
avow, did not honor and fair dealing require that they should do so? If they have 
since changed their principles, how can they honorably continue at a post they know 
they could not have occupied, had such change been known, or rather with the viewsand 
principles they now avow? Is there no abuse of privilege, no betrayal of trust in all 
this? Beside, these men are not constitutional officers ; they are mere special Agents, 
holding office temporarily, while the Southern Conferences are constitutional contract- 
ing parties in the organic structure of the Church, and as such, have rights which no 
sensible man will think of in connection with special temporary Agents. But further: 
these Agents, although unknown to the constitution, and as such, constituting no part 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church, have so usurped right and magnified their official 
consequence, as to declare in substance, a law of the General Conference null and void, 
by various attempts to induce the Annual Conference and the Church not to regard it as 
binding, but to treat it as a "nullity," and promising indemnity at the same time, in 
the event of such resistance. Let the Bishops and General Conference give their opin- 
ion of sucli conduct: "we regard it as of unhappy tendency, that either individual mem- 
bers or official bodies should employ terms and pass resolutions of censure and Con- 
demnation on their brethren, and on public officers and official bodies, over whose ac- 
tions they have no legitimate jurisdiction." Whatis the jurisdiction of our censors in 
the case under notice? We have said, were they constitutional officers, it would be 
different. As it is, they have no riglits except such as they derive from those who em- 
ploy them. But for the authority they defy and set at nought, they would have no 
right to speak at all — would not be found indeed in the places they occupy. How en- 
tirely different our position is we Iiave shown. We exercised the constitutional righ t 
of a Minority, and refused submission from the moment the wrong was inflicted. We 
demanded reparation on the ground of law and constitutional right. When the Ma- 
jority said they could not recede, we then asked for a division of General Conference ju- 
risdiction, that in future, as a large substantive portion of the great Methodist family, 
we might not be re-subjected to simikr treatment and difficulty ; and this was thought 
15 



114 

so reasonable by the Majority, they authorized us to do as we proposed. Connect, then, 
the constitutional rights of the Minority with this authorization of the Majority, and 
it will be seen we do not lack warrant in the course we have pursued. 

Among the thousand difficulties interposed to deter the Soutliern Conferences from 
action, their right to meet in Convention according to appointment, is called in ques- 
tion, and some no doubt, have felt the force of the objection. The right in the case 
connects with the Southern Conferences as such. The legitimate rigbtaf the Conven- 
tion to meet and deliberate, and its authority to act conclusively in the premises, result 
from the circumstances rendering it necessary, and tiie manner of its projection and 
getting up. As means to an end it was in tlie contemplation of all, when the plan of 
separation was adopted. By authority, the necessity of division was to be judged of 
by the Southern Con/£'re?7ces, not the 7)eoj5/e. The Majority did not propose lo consult 
the people. It was the Southern Ministry in their address to the Methodists of tlie 
South, who first brought out the idea and adopted it as a principle of action, to confer 
with the people fully and unreservedly. We knew the people had no constitutional 
right to f7ecic?e and determine, as such right is precluded both by our form of govern- 
ment, and the repeated declaration of the General Conference. Still we determined to 
consult them, and not act in contravention of their wishes and interests. They have 
decided the question as the action of their representatives assumed they would. Much 
the greater proportion of those who dissent from the South are upon the border, and 
the larger number of these do so because the disguises and misrepresentations making 
up the sum of their information on the subject, have led them to think only of a ''se- 
cession from the Church," instead of a ''constitutional division of the Church," as ex- 
pressly resolved by the General Conference. And so soon as these perversions of truth 
and fact are rightly understood, multitudes who now iiesitate will hesitate no longer. 
The motives and intended effect of tlieso misstatements, are becoming more and more 
intelligible every day, and the result is, individuals and societies are changing ground, 
even after formal committal, and falling in where they properly belong. And it is no 
disparagement of character or claim, to suggest what is morally certain to occur, both 
as regards individuals and societies, that even after an appeal to tlie Convention against 
division, its necessity will be fell and sanctioned by the remonstrants. Meanwhile, it 
is to be expected, that there are in the Southern States, and especially upon the border, 
anti-slavery men and abolitionists, who cannot be thought of as ever likely to coalesce 
with the South, and their number may be considerable. Northerners and foreigners not 
a few, with Old and New England and free State principles on the subject of slavery, 
as well as others, native citizens, will dissent from tlie policy of a Soutliern organiza- 
tion. Nothing else could be expected. A similar state of tilings, we know equally 
well, will be found upon the Northern side of the border, and all without affecting the 
main question. When the General Conference acted on the subject, it was well known 
and perfectly understood, that the Southern Conferences would of necessity, iiave to 
meet in Convention before a Southern organization could possibly take place, and the 
Convention will accordingly meet under the full and obvious sanction of the General 
Conference. The General Conference explicitly authorized the Southern Conferences 
to form a separate organization if they saw proper, and all means necessary to such a 
result have of course, the official approval of the General Conference, and hence the 
right and authority with which the Convention will meet. Beside, sixteen Southern 
Conferences and about two thirds of the Northern Conferences have (the former direct- 
ly and the latter indirectly) given their sanction to the Convention. Whether the 
Convention then shall proceed to organize a separate jurisdiction, as cunlemplated by 



115 

the General Conference or not, the holding of the Convention will be a regular Church 
procedure, accredited in proper form by the highest authority of the Church, an,d in no 
sense whatever an irregular revolutionary movement. Several of the Northern Con- 
ferences not voting for the change of the sixth restrictive rule, at their recent sessions, 
have intimated their intention to do so, should the South resolve to organize. And it is 
confidently believed that not more than three or four of all the Northern Conferences, 
if a single one, will finally endorse the doctrine of the Northern Commissioners for the 
division of the Church funds, that we are not entitled to a pro rata share of them, un- 
less we consent that what the General Conference calls 'a conslitutional division of the 
CViwrc/^," is really nothing but a "secession" /'■o''* it! We shall see. The South did 
not expect, did not even wish to be called the Methodist Episcopal Church in the Uni- 
ted States. They had no desire or purpose to usurp or supplant, in this respect. It 
was very generally agreed among the Southern Delegates, that if allowed to separate, as 
the General Conference authorized, with their just share of the Book Concern and 
Chartered Fund, and holding their own Church property, they would be known as "Z/ze 
Southern Methodist Episcopal Church.''^ They were only anxious to preclude all idea 
of secession from the Churcli, or departure of any kind from the great principles of 
American Methodism. Securing this last result, we are by no means ambitions as to 
title, or the name by which we are to be known. We intend to be understood, howev- 
er, both as it regards our principles and action. If denounced and defamed as a "se- 
cession," by the Church North, as we have been by Northern Church Editors and oth- 
ers, it will remain to be decided by other men and other methods, what has essentially 
constituted the Methodist Episcopal Church since 1784, and in what the South has de- 
parted from it. The North will not be permitted to settle this question, any more than 
the South. The party adhering to law and usage will be the true Church, whether 
North or South, Majority or Minority. We cannot be unapprised of the united effort 
of partizan leaders and portions of the Church, from Maine to Illinois, to produce the 
conviction and spread the alarm that the South is about to become a "secession." And 
among the means employed, is the rallying shout for the union of the Church by the 
very men who dug its grave. Herod East, and Pilate West, the abolitionist and con- 
servative, have simulated the sacrifice of dislike and enmity upon this fancied altar 
of their own erection, and in hope of realizing the purposes for which they "made 
friends;" are likely to relish with no common zest, the "feast of charity" which is to 
give to oblivion the "bitter herbs" of their former intercourse, or it may be want of it. 
The South never thought of a separate organization, until it became necessary to pre- 
serve Methodism as it was before the innovations of the last General Conference. It 
was the only remedy left us for correcting the effects of an abuse of trust by the Ma- 
jority, and for doing this we are subjected to the abuse and villification of exasperated 
partizans, as "dividers" of the Church and "seceders" from it. Do our enemies hope 
to divert attention from the true issue by a resort to such methods of vague ad captan' 
^Mm imputation, unsupported by the suffrage of facts or the semblance of truth? We 
believe we have already submitted a sufficient amount of evidence to prepare the reader 
to determine, with which party originated the necessity of division, and to whom right- 
fully belong the epithets "divisionists, seceders, &c.," so liberally applied to us. The 
Majority have earned the distinction at no common cost, and history will see that they 
are not deprived of the honors they have won. 

It mav be well here to recur to a former topic: It has been urged with imposing em- 
phasis, that the division of jurisdiction proposed, will tend to a dissolution of the po- 
litical Union of the States, North and South. In our judgment, however, its direct 



116 

tendency will be to prevent it. That the controversy in the Methodist Episcopal Church 
for the last twelve years, has tended to such a result, few will doubt; and all agitation 
of the question of slavery, must, of necessity, continue to do so. If we do not sepa- 
rate, it is morally certain we shall have nothing but agitation on the subject. In the 
event of a separation, after a brief border, and perhaps some intestine war, the fair 
probability is, we siiall liave peace, and the business of agitation subside entirely, or 
at least nearly so. The rights and feelings of the parties will reciprocally command, 
and bring about a state of comity and good feeling infinitely more favorable to the sta- 
bility of the National Union than the existing state of things, and the exciting agita- 
tion consequent upon it. In any event, should the Northern abolition crusade continue 
and gain strength in its political aspects, the safety of the Union must be endangered 
in proportion, and no man can hide the threatened evil from his eyes. It must be seen 
and looiied forward to. As the friends then, and uniform supporters of the National 
Union, what are we, as Southern Methodists, called upon to dol Obviously to select 
that course of policy and action which will be best calculated to repress abolition ex- 
citement and agitation, and so far as the Methodist Episcopal Church is concerned, if 
correctly represented by the Majority in the late General Conference, and the course 
there indicated is to be persisted in, we regard separation as the only mode of doing it. 
The charge insinuated against the South, in at least one, if not more of our General 
Conference organs, that they are disposed to favor the views and. designs of men whose 
political course and purposes aim at a dissolution of the Union, and that they are pro- 
bably acting in concert with them, is as truthless and unfounded as it is insidious and 
dishonorable. One of the grave and influential motives which determined the South to 
protest against the proceedings of the North, was to prevent an impression South, that 
a Northern anti-slavery majority might trespass upon Southern rights to any extent 
they felt inclined, without resistance by the Southern Ministry, and thus increase the 
difficulties already existing between the free and slave holding States. It was, and con- 
tinues to be, the belief of the Southern Delegates, that nothing but a generous and 
manly adherence to the compromise of the Federal Constitution, on the subject of 
slavery, can possibly perpetuate a union originally based upon i(. And believing the 
Blethodist Episcopal Church in the North was infringing that compromise, by ecclesi- 
astical action in violation of political right, they knew existing evils in the South 
would be greatly, if not hopelessly aggravated, did they allow themselves to become 
unresisting partie? to the encroachment complained of. And taking the same view of 
both political and church parties, they were led to look upon a separation of General 
Conference jurisdiction as most likely to prevent, as far as the Church was concerned, 
final and incurable disunion in the one and the other. One thing is certain, unless ri- 
gid adherence to law and right is proof of an attempt at disunion, the South needs no 
vindication against the ciiarge. And it is equally certain, that by how far infrincre- 
uient of law and right, as shown in these pages, tends to disunion in Church and State, 
to the same extent are those who bring the charge against the South, guilty of it them- 
selves. We have seen how the compromise of the Constitution of the United States, 
the great national compact, is being infringed and set aside by abolition and anti-slave- 
ry propagandism. We have seen how the corresponding legislation of the Church has 
been superseded by the tactics of a loose and reckless expediency, and such defection 
from law and right, and failure to maintain and assert the claims of relative and social 
justice, will explain to men of sense and candor at whose door lies the charge of un- 
dermining the foundations, and invading the sanctity of the National Union. The 
Bishops say, in their address, in 1840, and might have repeated it with equal truth in 



117 

1844, "at the last session of the General Conference the subject of slavery, and its ab- 
olition, was extensively discussed, and vigorous exertions made, to etTect new legisla- 
tion upon it. We regret that we are compelled to say, that in some of the Northern 
and Eastern Conferences, in contravention of your christian and pastoral counsel, and 
our best efforts to carry it into effect, the subject has been agitated in such forms, and- 
in such a spirit as to disturb the peace of the Church." Would to God the Church of 
our common love had learned the lesson in time, before it was too late to prevent the 
calamity already upon us, that whenever the Bible ceases to be the deep, and broad, and 
one foundation of our religious convictions, all is unsafe and in danger, because at the 
mercy of unbridled fanatacism ! Who, then, are the true "divisionists" in this contro- 
versyl Will not the common sense of the Church and the world decide tiiat those 
with whom, or rather connected with whose conduct, originated the necessity of divis- 
ion, are the persons or party really entitled to the distinction, and exclusively account- 
able for the result? That it was the Northern party who took new ground upon the 
slave question, we have, as we think, clearly proved in this discussion. That they 
took ground equally new and untenable, on the Episcopal question, we shall have oc- 
casion to show in the sequel. That they, and not the Soutii, have departed from law 
and order, we think susceptible of the clearest demonstration. That they have recent- 
ly manifested a most striking proclivity to change, a prurient appetence for innovation, 
will scarcely admit of doubt. Hov/ far such mental and moral habitudes may be char- 
acteristic of the North, rather than the South, we shall not take upon ourselves to de- 
termine, but leave them to verify or disprove the statement of Robertson, the Plistori- 
an, with regard to the good old stock, their ancestral types. : "from the first institution 
of the company of Massachusetts Bay, its members seem to have been animated with 
a spirit of innovation in civil pDlicy as well as iii religion ; and by the habit of reject- 
ing established usages in the one, they were prepared for deviating from them in the 
other." Connected with the supposed tendencies in question, we have seen what has 
been the influence of interest and policy. A Northern Clergyman says, "the different 
physical features and agricultural productions of the South and North have more than 
the force or absence of proper moral feeling, banished slavery from the one, and per- 
petuated it in the other. Had New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, or even New 
England, produced cotton, rice, indigo, and sugar, it is not improbable slavery would 
have continued in these States, and increased its numbers here to this very hour." 
Many of the first men of the North have expressed similar opinions, and proved their 
sincerity by the magnanimity of their conduct. 

If the Church be a unit, in the sense insisted upon in this controversy, not only one, 
but indivisible, it must, of necessity, by means of such mystic unity, be connected 
with slavery, in all its sections, in New York and Boston as well as Charleston and 
New Orleans. If that unity, as has been contended, turns mainly upon the Traveling 
Ministry, as holding and exercising the governing poicer of the Churcii, it follows, of 
course, that the whole ministry, so far as it is a unit, is connected with slavery, be- 
cause slave holders are found both in its own ranks and throughout a large extent of 
its pastoral charges. Who can forget with what revolting horror the frightened North 
prayed that slavery might not be "returned and rolled back" upon them. But what 
meant this devout deprecation? Had it really any meaning at all? Slavery returned — 
rolled back upon the North, without adding a solitary human being to the number of 
either slaves or masters ! And what makes the matter still more difficult to be under- 
stood, all this evil befalls the North without any change even oT relation in the instance 
of any one of all the thousands concerned! Plainly, however, Bishop Andrew musroiot 



118 

go North, and so wc sa}' loo. But in all his constitutional relations, as Bishop of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, he is North as well as South. He is Bishop there, by 
right, and was so declared by Northern \oies in May last. His oiEcial jurisdiction, 
by consent and decree of the Majority, slave holder though he be, extends to every Con- 
ference, District, Circuit, Station, Church, Pulpit, Fireside, and Closet. He is Bishop 
of the whole North, by laxo and right. To say he rightfully sustains the reialion, but 
is not allowed to perform its duties, only makes the matter worse. The reason of the 
result is not found in the fitness of things. If it be said he is merely requested not to 
perform its duties, it is still worse, for it is left to the Bishop himself to say whether 
he will discharge the obligations of a trust, which law, and the vows of office require 
shall be discharged with unrelaxing fidelity. The general evil complained of, is in- 
creased too, by another view of the subject. How many Northern men, not a few of 
whom are now abolitionists and anti-slavery agitators, have been ordained by Bishop 
Andrew during the last nine years, and since his connection with slavery, and have thus 
become the medium through which the evil has been returned and rolled back upon the 
North? What is to be done in this case? If there has been defilement, how is it to be 
got rid of? What would be the effect of the re-imposition of hands by an Abolition 
Bishop? Will it be tried? But again, the Majority claim Episcopal power for the 
General Conference. According to the traditions of 1844, they are the ordainers and 
administrators, by the Ministry of the Bishops, as their mere agents, removable at will, 
and as such, the General Conference, North and South, are annually, and have been for 
half a century, ordaining slave holders, and recognizing the scriptural laicfulness of 
the evil of slavery, in all the forms and relations of church administration, and hence, 
connection with slavery in another form ; and vvhat, we ask, is to be the remedy in 
this case? Has it been duly considered at the North, to what extent the entire Episco- 
pacy is connected with slavery, by annually ordaining, with the consent of the whole 
Ciuirch, scores of slave holders, and sending them out in the name of God to preach the 
Gospel, and exercise pastoral supervision in the various fields of Church enterprise? 
In view of this multiform connection with slavery, what will the Church next attempt 
North? 

The plan now seems to be, to drive off the South as a secession. But this cannot be, 
as we have seen, wilhoul subverting the .iuthority of the General Conference, and to do 
this, is to destroy tiie existing government of the Church. We know many Northern 
men who are trembling at the audacity of the experiment. They perceive the effect 
must recoil upon the North. It is perceived that if they nullify the action of the last 
General Conference, that of the next may be nullified in like manner, no matter to what 
it may relate ; and hence, an interminable train of evils, tending to the overthrow of 
all government. If, for the good and sufiicient cause we have shown, the Southern 
movement in Bishop Andrew's case be regarded by the North as so extremely danger- 
ous, vviiy is it, that in an attempt lo correct our error, tiiey commit a precisely similar 
one, with the manifest disadvantage against themselves, of not having anythin<T like 
the same indemnifying reasons for their action. 

But we are sagely told the General Conference only authorized a "friendly" separa- 
tion. By "mutual and friendly division," was certainly not meant, as Editors and oth- 
ers contend, that any manifestation of improper feeling, North or South, would vitiate 
the contract, and "nullify" the official action of the General Conference, but simply 
that the separation, upon fixed terms and specified conditions, was to heiuutuaUy agreed 
to, and ratified by the parties respectively, without a resort to revolutionary party vio- 
lence. No man, asleep or awake, ever dreamed that the ordinary excitement usually 



119 

attendant upon a'controversy involving the passions and interests of millions, could 
render null and void the obligations of a plain contract, deliberately entered into by tiie 
parties. If the parties have been out of temper, and have displayed bad passions, it is 
to be regretted certainly, but cannot affect the contract between them. It was the im- 
possibility of living together in harmony which led to the agreement to separate, and 
to urge the necessary effects of such want of harmony, in vitiation of the contract, is 
too preposterous to be thought of. Even heaven requires us to "live peaceably with all 
men," in view of the exception that it is impossible to do so with some. 

It may be the Protest misapprehended the "sense" of the General Conference aa to 
the judicial or merely advisory character of the proceedings in Bishop Andrews' case. 
"What else could be expected when the Majority obstinately continue to disagree among 
themselves, and as a party, have not yet decided what they meant. The Bishops, in 
their address of the 30th May, understood the action proposed by Finley's resolution, 
•as an adjudication, a judicial proceeding. Both before and after it had passed, the 
South understood it as having the force of a mandatory order. Take the mooted form 
of expression as elsewhere and otherwise used by the same body, and what is the in- 
ference authorized? "Resolved, That it is 'the sense' of this General Conference, that 
the voteof S"turday in the case of Bishop Andrew, be understood as advisory only." 
What is meant.' Plainly, ordered that it is the judgment, &c. "Resolved, as the sense 
of thisjConference. that Bishop Andrew's uame stand in the Minutes, Hymnbcok, and 
Discipline as formerly" — that is, undeniably, ordered that, &c., nothing advisory about 
it. ''Resolved, That it is /Ae sejjse of this General Conference, that the Church now 
stands, in relation to the testimony of colored persons, as it did before the General 
Conference Jof 1840." The only and obvious meaning is, ordered. &c. Resolved, 
That it is the sense of this General Conference, that paragraph, &.c., stand, &c. — that 
is, ordered, not advised. "It is hereby declared to be the sense of this General Confer- 
ence, that J. "V. Potts, be restored, &c." In all these instances, the form of expression 
used in Bishop Andrew's case is mandatory, and it is not used in an advisory sense, in 
any instance upon the Journals of 1840 or 1844. What then is the presumption crea- 
ted] Is it not in favor of the construction of the South? The Protest proceeded upon 
the assumption that all application of law or its principles, is necessarily judicial in its 
character, whether such in form or not, and that if conduct be censured in view of laio, 
by a tribunal having cognizance of the case, it is a judicial act, Finley's preamble 
distinctly charges a violation of law, and his resolution is a judicial judgment follow- 
ing upon the charge. There is a formal indictment and a specific finding. Disabiliiy 
in consequence, is inflicted on Bishop Andrew, and reaches him in the shape of penalty. 
They gave him a parchment, declaring, that in their judgment, God had called him to 
the work and ofince of a Bishop. They give notice in their proceedings against him, 
that for specific reasons, they have seen proper to decide that he ought not to do the 
work appropriate to his office, and he is, therefore, punished, a thousand denials and 
disclaimers notwithstanding. If we grant, however, that tlie joint resolve of abolition 
and anti-slavery, known as Finley's, was but advisory, it does not affect in any mate- 
rial sense, the reasoning of the Protest, for the character of the prosecution does not 
essentially, by any means, turn upon that of tlie decision, and the Protest principally 
discusses the general movement. If we knew the true position of the Nortii, we would 
meet it, but we Ao not. Dr. Bond at first took great care to show the famous resolution 
advisory ; subsequently, he has obviously based his reasoning upon its mandatory force, 
as any one can see and show by his editorials. The New England organ regards the 
resolution as a mandamus. Dr. Elliott, in the Reply, says it was mere advice. In his 



120 

paper, Iiowever, he demolishes the Reply, and says the resolution has all the force of 
law. And a score of similar contradictions and cross opinions, from the same party, 
miillit be pointed out if necessary. We have seen that the Reply says Bishop Andrew 
was not tried — that the proceeding against him was not judicial — was not punitive; 
that he v/as not legally suspended. Now admit that Bishop Andrew was not tried in 
due form— that the proceeding against him was not judicial pursuant to law and right — 
that he was not punished in any sense known to law and usage — that he was not sub- 
jected to legal suspension in any allowable sense ; still it does not follow that the state- 
ment of the Reply is true to the facts in the case. Bishop Andrew was irregularly 
tried. He was informally subjected to judicial process, and judicial disability being 
the result, he was, to all intents and purposes, punished. The nature of his punish- 
ment is defined by his Judges; he is to "desist" from the exercise of his functions, 
that is, (nothing else can be made of it,) he is suspended, and the question next arises, 
how far the suspension was constructively removed or modified by Mitchell's resolu- 
tions. When formally moved to do so, the Conference refused to declare the resolution 
advisory. They refused to adopt their own report, made by special order, a prominent 
feature of which was, the advisory character of the resolution. Utterly at variance 
among themselves, as to what they meant then, or might afterwards find it convenient 
to mean, how can it be expected that others should understand them? Refusing to say 
or admit that the resolution was simple advice, when gravely called upon to explain 
their meaning, did they not officially authorize the alternate construction that the sen- 
tence was mandatory, or that they deemed a resort to verbal equivocation necessary to 
accomplish the purposes they had in view? It is contended the "dignity" of the body 
would have been lowered by explanation. In what way it was asserted by failing to 
express themselves intelligibly, even to their own party, will probably be as inobvious 
to many, as the meaning of the resolution itself. What is most extraordinary, how- 
ever, is the fact, that the Majority are as far from agreeing among themselves now as 
they were ten months ago. As a party, they refused to explain, and so far as individ- 
uals have explained for them, they have afhrmed and denied — said and unsaid ; their 
yea has been nay and their nay yea. One man, one class of men affirmed Bishop An- 
drew was blameless ; without reproach, and must not be censured because he had vio- 
lated nolav^orrule of the Church. Others said he had acted in "bad faith" — "dishon- 
orably" — "was a dishonored man," and guilty of "gross immorality;" and yet these 
very men, one and all, under the cohesive influence of party combination, voted for the 
same thing, and went for the same measures; voted both for Finley's resolution and 
Mitchell's explanation; some declared the former mandatory and others advisory. One 
half unite in saying, if tlieBisIiop exercise his functions, he is responsible for disobe- 
dience to the express will of the Conference, the other say no, he will only be held ac- 
countable for not deferring to advice. Both agree in refusing to say he shall work, and 
are equally united in refusing to sny he shall not, and all, it seems, are unanimous in 
the purpose, that whether he shall work or not. it shall amount to the same thing. 
Facing the North, they all declare they cannot and will not have a slave holding Bishop, 
and turning to tiie South, tiiey instantly determine tliat they have and will have one. 
They refuse to request Bishop Andrew to resign, and then turn round and blame him 
for not doing what they thouglit it improper to request of him. They order an expla- 
nation of the whole affair by several of their most distinguished men, each a host in 
himself, ns it regards character, learning, and influence, and then refuse to adopt it. 
They direct the argument and opinions of Drs. Durbin, Peck, and Elliott to be spread 
upon their Journals without official sanction, and yet ostensibly as the judgment of the 



121 

Conference. Take then, the action of the Conference upon Finley's resolution, and it 
will be seen that the positions and reasoning of the Protest are fully sustained. And 
turninof to Mitchell's resolutions, giving a new aspect to the whole subject by addition- 
al and different action, and it will appear equally clear that Bishops Soule and Andrew 
have acted in perfect conformity with the only intelligible position the Conference final- 
ly chose to assume, in relation to the whole affiiir. 

Recent intimations that Mitchell's explanation is yet to be explained, seem to indicate 
that the great Northern party are by no means settled as to purpose or policy, end or 
means. What the result may be as it regards these, we have no means of knowing. 
We know, it is true, for we have the evidence in our possession, that there is a large 
amount of dissent and dissatisfaction North, in relation to the course pursued by the 
official Press, but whether such dissent will ever be developed and embodied in any 
available action, admits of doubt. It is not unlikely the principal results will be con- 
fined to want of confidence, division, and distraction among the different sections of the 
party. 

Editors charged with the management of the Church, the General Conference, the 
Episcopacy, the Annual Conferences, and so on, as the greater includes the less, are 
certainly potent agents, and wield effective instrumentalities, and may ward off evils 
which we deem inevitable. Meanwhile, it is our opinion that, however party pohcy 
and interest may hold the great Northern mass together for a short time, (supposing 
the South to organize,) yet at no distant day, the anti-slavery of the more Northern 
Conferences, will drive off all connected with slavery in the Baltimore, Philadelphia, 
Pittsburg, and Ohio Conferences, as well as societies "adhering" North, on the South- 
ern border, or failing in this, will declare themselves independent, and throw them- 
selves in conflict with the Conferences now connected with slavery. Were the slave 
holding portions of the Conferences just named, to unite with the South, (an event not 
at all likely to occur, as will soon be shown by the Baltimore Conference,) the entire 
North might remain together, but in view of the course things are now taking, continu- 
ed union is extremely improbable. So soon as tiiese sections are found in a state of 
actual wardship under the Northern guardians of the Church, it will be demanded' of 
them to relieve the Church North of the last vestige of slavery. This demand will no 
doubt, be resisted, and disunion and conflict, followed by separation, will be the result. 
Without the compromise shown in these pages to have so long distinguished the rela- 
tions of "Methodism and Slavery," it is impossible they can live together in peace, 
although hostility to the South may keep them together for the purposes of defence and 
aggression as a party. The pertinence of the following language, from a Northern 
source, in noway implicated in this controversy, will be appreciated by good sense every 
where. The various necessities (of the Church,) are sometimes too ohstiiwiely discor- 
dant to be met by any general laws, and yet general laws alone can be passed. Such are 
the contrarieties of views, principles, interests, and ulterior objects, that the legislation 
of the General Conference is of sheer necessity, conducted on the principle and in the 
spirit of compromise.'''' The vigorous minded author of the above sentence saw clearly, 
that the moral and ecclesiastical cannot be separated from the political relations of slave- 
ry wherever it exists, under the high sanction of the civil polity of the country, and we 
have seen that it so exists in tlie United States. Our connection with slavery is strictly 
national. It exists in the South by consent of the North, and from ihe very foundations 
of the government blends indissolubly with our national existence and relations. The 
responsibility, whether as it regards its existence, continuance, or removal, belongs to 
the nation as such, and net to the South alone. This opinion has been deliberately 
16 



122 

avowed, not only by the first statesmen and jurists of the country, but virtually, as we 
have seen, by Congress, and gravely and formally by nearly one half the State Legisla- 
tures of the Union, in connection with the objects of African Colonization, particularly 
Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, 
Georgia, Tennessee, Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana, seven of them being non-slave hold- 
ing States. Any attempt to palm the evil upon tiie South as sectional, can only be the 
result of ignorance or ill nature. The great act and means of our nationalization, both 
as a people and as several different States in union — the formation and adoption of the 
national constitution, places this beyond dispute. So far as slavery is evil, it is the na- 
tion that has sinned, and the nation must make the atonement, in some form or other. 
The slave States have never shown themselves unwilling to make their share of the 
atonement, by safe and proper methods. Speaking of Southern emancipation and the 
separation of the races, Mr. Jefferson says, "although more important to the slave 
Stales, it is highly so to the others also, if they were serious in their arguments on the 
Missouri question. The slave States too, if more interested, would also contribute more 
by their gratuitous liberation, thus taking upon themselves alone, the first and heav- 
iest item of expense." If it be alledged that the system of Southern domestic slavery 
precludes the hope that the South will so act as to sustain the h!gh interests of civil 
liberty in the United States, it will perhaps be sufficient to reply to the charge, as did 
Edmund Burke to a similar charge in the British Parliament : "the people of the South- 
ern colonies of America, are imich more strongly, and with a I'igher and more stubborn 
spirit, attached to liberty, than those to the Northward.^'' 

We are tempted again to ask, why the South is denounced with such unsparing bit- 
terness for doing only what our denouncers glory in having done themselves"? The 
Northern organs of the General Conference, assure the Church, as quietly as though 
they had right to do so, that ministers and people are under no obligation of any kind, 
to be governed by the action of that body on the subject of separation, declaring the 
whole to be unauthorized and not entitled to deference and submission on the part of the 
Church. We have seen that with infinitely better reason for what tiiey did, in resist- 
ing the prosecution of Bishop Andrew, and with constitutional and moral right to 
which, the North can lay no claim, the South have done abstractly, nothing but what 
the North has, and why then so much bluster and menace against us, while their own 
conduct is all well enough? Does it not show at least that party and not principle is 
the guiding influence'? 

The Reply, if we understand it, perversely supposes the Protest to assume that the 
constitution and laws of the United States and of the slave-holding States respectively, 
are such that these must be violated by any effort toward the emancipation of the negro. 
No such idea is conveyed in any part of the Protest. Nor is the reasoning of that pa- 
per touched by the alternative so much stressed by the Pieply, tliat law must require 
slave holding on the one hand, or merely allow it on the other. The logic of the Pro- 
test is not at fault unless it can be shown that this alternative view of the subject is 
correct in States where emancipation is impracticable, and this cannot be done, for the 
assumption of the Reply is contrary to notorious fact. In Georgia, for example, and 
nearly all the Southern States, a citizen holding slaves is required to hold unless he 
transfer his title, which transfer docs not affect the legal servitude of the slave. What 
is meant by the Protest in this respect, and is contended for in the argument of this Re- 
view is, that the law of slavery in most of tiie slave holding States, does not allow the 
freedom of the stave and prohibits interference of any kind witii the relations or rights of 
the citizen holding slaves, and it is charged that contrary to its published creed and 



123 

pledged faith, the Church has so interfered at different times and ^^^^^^^"^ \"f^;: 
es. If we have faUed to make good the charge, the North have the f-P^- ;- ^^ 
ability to make it appear, and let it be done. In disposing of several miscellane^^^^^ 
ite^is in this connection, we take great pleasure in repeating, what ^^ ^f ^^ ^e but a 
simple act of justice, that in speaking of the abolition and anti-slavery of England and 
the North of the United States, we have, as before explained, no intention to implicate 
or in any way censure the entire people found in either, but ask distinctly that the appli- 
cation of our strictures and reasoning may be confined to two classes those practically 
engaged in the conduct and movements we have described : and second those who eiUier 
approve or fail to resist them. If it is not our object to show that the good people of 
England and the North of the United States, viewed as an entire people are ..or.a 
Than those of the Southern States, but that they are no better, and that the stupidly ao- 
surd boasting of abolition and anti-slavery, in behalf of the former, can be very satis- 
atorily rep ied to by the latter, whenever it is necessary. From large portions of 
he people of England and the North, we receive nothing but outrage and insult-t e 
anathemas of illnature rather than the sympathies of brotherhood, an conscious we do 
not deserve the treatment we receive, we have thought it but just and ngh to kt i 
seen by u-korn and under what show of claim we are thus cursed and banned. On U^^s 
topic we have sustained our views almost exclusively by English and Northern wit- 
leses and these not few in number or questionable in character. We have said of 
E I d, nothing more than what Englishmen have said-one of her d-tjnguished sons 
for^exan pie, in °he North British Review, "injustice, oppression, and degrada ion in 
nZ quarters of the globe, have been the sole fruits of British ^nterference:^ We 
have st^^ of the North nothing, it is believed, which does injustice to the truth of his- 
tory Of the South, in connection with the many unnecessary and wanton abuses, in the 
shape of inhumanity and vice, more or less incident to the system of slavery, we have 
spoken plainly and without reserve, and have only defended the South so far as we be- 
lieve truth and justice entitle her to defense. Truth and plain dea ing have een our 
obiec We ha enocherished ulterior aims to accomplish, beyond an attempt to ren- 
dere.«?i;--Hn controversy less difficult and intractable to those who may wish to 
und rst nd it. We have written under the full and strong conviction that the igno- 
ranee in which the popular mind of the nation has been kept by its teachers, respecting 
ZlvereMions of'tlie North and South on the subject of slavery, is a stupendous 
f^audup nthe unsuspecting credulity of millions, and fatally tending to the over- 
rrovoMhe great national brotherhood, in which they ^ "^ ^ ^^^P^!'^ ,f "^^t 
We repeat, it is not our wish, it is no part of our purpose, to defend individuals or the 
luth n r gavd to any of the abuses of slavery, such as cruelty o any kind to slaves, 
„ . lee of t'eir comfort, inattention to their wants, violation of their rights-the infa- 
L°us practice of driving an internal tradein slaves, with its usual attendant eno^i les 
for the purposes of gain ; these and all kindred evils, we abhor and denounce, and shal 
always continue to do so, as utterly inconsistent with either religion or humanity, and 
as deserving the scorn and contempt of both. The Reply most disingenuously as we 
hink tri s^o involve the Bishops in the prosecution of Bishop Andrew^ They say 
the Majority had it "forced" upon them by the address of the Bishops. The Bishops, 
however, made no allusion to any difficulty or disabi^^ity preventing Bishop Andrew 
from doing the work of a general superintendent, and in their address on Bishop An- 
drew's case, expressly affirm the contrary of what the Reply attempts to fix upon them. 
They say in terms, that work could be given to Bishop Andrew, where he vvould be 
cordially received, -without any infraction of a constitutional principle. The con- 



124 

struction of the Reply was disavowed by the Bishops before the Reply was written, and 
the injustice to the Bishops is without excuse. The attempt of the Reply, endorsed 
by Advocates &c. to .ake it appear that to hold slaves in the Southern sfate^ stand 
:n the same relation to personal choice, and the virtues of good character with the pat- 
ronage of the theatre, grog- shop, and gaming table, will prove too attractive not to en- 
gage the a tention of the reader without further comment from us, A cipher, whether 

stance. The Church, both inlaw and practice, has always made the distinction and 
reco^.zed the difference xt seems to be the object of the Reply to deny and confound 

wl^ot P ? ! 7r """"' ^^^^""""^'J'- ^'-^ ""'-« - J^i^hop shall travel throughout the 
u hole ex ent of territory embraced by all the Annual Conferences in the American con- 
the C; " ''""r. constitutionally, a general superintendent, and it is argued that as 
the No th are not disposed to receive Bishop Andrew in that character, of course he 
cannot e one. This whole argument is entirely fallacious for several reasons l" 

Z nee TTl " 'Tr'''l '"'■"; '" ^"^'"""'^^ ^"^^^^'"^^ °^ ^he General Con-' 
lerence. id^It has not been the uniform practice of the Bishops for the last Iwentv 
years. 3d. Te disqualification of Bishop Andrew, can only be'made o i v l :o I 
d m.nd of abolition and anti-slavery, not only extra-legal but unlawful ; not only d es 
no law require it but it is contrary to law. And finally, the ...e... of Miatisaslumed 
has been repeatedly authorized by the General Conference. That of 1840 for example 
resolved that the Bishops be recommended ^.o mahe such an appo tionme of^^ 

good^ I" 1S32 the General Conference resolved, "it is inexpedient to require each of 
our Bishops to travel throughout tne whole of their extensive charge during the re s 
of the General Conference." and they recommend the Episcopacy so to arfan.e he " 
general oversight in this respect, as shall best suit their own convenience. tIio Gen 
eral Conference of 1824, resolved that "it is highly expedient for the general super- 
zntendentsto meetin council at every session of the General Conference.'to form I " 
p an of traveling through their charge, whether in a circuit after each other, or di.id^l 
ike connectron into Ep^scopal Deparl.rents as to them may appear proper ad most en- 

le wLld ' '7 f,"'-" -^'^ "^^^'^P^ ^" ^'^^ '^^'' ^-''' "no constitutional p inc . 
pie would be infringed by giving Bishop Andrew work where he would be cordially re- 
ceived.' The Reply, therefore, is entirely at fault in this matter, as the Gene a Con- 
crence has at several different times, expressly authorized what hey affirm won des- 
troy the Episcopacy altogether! If not "to travel at large," through all the Annull 
Cnerences, destroys the validity of Methodist Episcopacy did not ''the late Ge e a 
Conference violate one of the restrictive rules, in the quasi location of Bishop Andr w 
wi hout finding him guilty of offense against some law of the Church^ ' 

It has been shown that under semblance of conformity to the provisions of a consti- 
tution and the forms of law, an unlawful and even fraudulent use may be made of bo 
and^ resistance in all sucJ, and in all anala.ous cases, is the only remedy left the L'u'ed 

The South -'broke the tables" but not "the law " Th« Mr..tu k i ., , 

.es.™,e.U,e,a..,,,p.oe,ai™i„,U,eLeit..7e:i!;^ ^etj : .■: 
tr.ove ar ucks „,,ly excepted. The Somh m.lui.i„ .ha. „,e la. of ,te an , as .he 
genera rue anj by fa.r ,„,p,iea.ion, is .0 bo regarded as a fundamen..! prineTp of ee- 
cl s,a.„cal law, .„d ,ha. a,„ a.temp. by Church ac.ion, .0 invade or unsel.le right and 

erergn.yof .heN..,onalmll,,s,salien.o Methodism as it is manifestly "unscrip- 



I 



125 



tural," and if we have seemed to break the letter of the Church law, in some aspects 
of ihe subject, it was only to maintain its spirit and purpose in others of much more 
importance. 

The object of the attempt to make the South a "secession," is two fold. It is ex- 
pected to be a permanent bond of union between the abolition and old anti-slavery 
parties. They hope to have no further cause of quarrel as during the late "Radico 
abolition" war, and it also tends to the gratification of a large amount of personal 
grudge and spleen indulged in by Northern leaders, towards individuals in the South, 
who have been so unfortunate as to become somewhat prominent in this controversy. 
A third motive, connected with the funds of the Church, has its influence with some, 
who cannot help betraying their reverence for the buikr, but we do not believe it applies 
to the North generally, nor will we believe it, until they refuse to divide as ordered by 
the General Conference, which we are quite sure the upriglit masses in the ministry 
and membership North, will not permit their leaders to do. 

The Reply bases several of its conclusions upon the fact that the action of the Ma- 
jority against Bishop Andrew, was called for by the abolition petitions presented to the 
Conference. The reasoning of the Repliers in this respect, is directly opposed to a formal 
decision of the General Conference of 1840, which declares that petitions relatino- to o-en- 
eral interests and not involving personal grievance, are to be considered only as the 
opinions and arguments of the signers, and not prayer for relief under protection of 
the right of petition. We must, therefore, understand the Majority as endorsing the 
doctrines of the petitions, or else dissenting from General Conference authority. 
Which was intended? 

Anothei- fallacy of the Manifesto is, it seems to connect the principal functions of 
-Episcopacy with the mere fact of "traveling at large," whereas the true idea of general 
superintendency is, the extent and universality of the Bishop's oversight and jurisdic- 
tion, as it regards all the various interests of the Church "temporal and spiritual," 
and it would have been much more consistent with the constitution and laws of the 
Church, if instead of the unlawful attempt to exclude Bishop Andrew, from the Norlh, 
on account of a connection with slavery authorized by the Church, (as we have shown,) 
they had urged the duty of his oversight in that direction, to resist and subdue the inva- 
sion and defiance of law and order by anti-slavery extravagance. Another of the pro- 
abolition heresies of the Reply is, that what is avowedly founded in grace, the ivill and 
ca/i of Christ, we mean the oversight and jurisdiction of a christian Bishop, accordino- 
to the ordination service, may be forfeited or at least annulled without sin or moral 
offense of any kind. What right can the Church have to remove, punish, or in any 
way embarrass a man called by Christ to the "wor/t and ojfice" of a Bishop, when it is 
not even alledg-ed that he has sinned against any law of Christ] Whatever else it may 
be, this is not Methodism. 

We had long hoped and believed that tiie salvation of the slave would prove a salva- 
iory clause in the anti-slavery creed of Northern Methodism, and so arrest the vandal 
inroads of abolitionism, as to allow the "gospel free course" among the slaves of tiie 
South. We re-advert to the subject because no urgency of appeal can equal its im- 
portance. By how much Hell is worse than the social bondage of the slave, and Hea- 
ven preferable to any condition the result of his liberation ; by how far eternity is more 
limportant than time, thus infinitely does the poor negro need the gospel more than anv 
Ithing else, and hundreds of thousands of them are now annually receiving it at the 
hands of the Southern ministry. This work, however, the North is steadily retarding 
by its whole course of policy on the subject of slavery. Not satisfied with inspiring 



126 

the slave with impatience and discontent in relation to his earthly lot, they dash from 
his lips the cup of salvation, and leave him to his fate. If they "remember those that 
are in bonds," it is certainly not "as bound icith ihem." In this respect they are indeed 
fearful defaulters in the cause of the negro. How very differently did the good Asbury 
think and feel on this great question of life and death to the negro. Assuming the 
truth of Park's Travels and similar accounts of Africa, he says, "the Africans are in a 
state so icretched, that any sufferings with the gospel, would be preferred." After a 
long and conscientious struggle with his early abolition principles and feelings, this 
good man clung to the compromise of these pages, as the true ground to be occupied 
by the Church, declaring his maxim to be, "all is right that works right— all is wrong 
that works wrong." 

Before dismissing this general topic, it may bo proper to notice a covert intimation of 
the Reply, to the effect that whatever may be the protection extended or the rights se- 
cured to the ovvner of slaves by the constitution and laws of the United States and the 
States respectively, v.-here slavery exists, it can be no ground of argument or action in 
the pending struggle between the North and South. We believe, however, the intel- 
ligent reader will be prepared to decide, in view of the evidence submitted, that the pro- 
tection and security in question, are just and necessary grounds of both argument and 
action, and that the doctrine of the Majority in this respect, has been constantly disa- 
vowed by the Church from 1800 to 1844. The standing laws of the Church during this 
entire period, have pledged the public faith of the whole body, that where emancipation 
is impracticable, con?>i^\eni]y \\\\\\civW\o.\\, it shall not he required of anypersonor class, 
as the condition of Church privileges or ecclesiastical relations. The deliberate and 
undoubted violation of this pledge by the General Conference of 1844, taught the South- 
ern portion of the Church, that the larger division of it North, had abandoned the legal 
compromise of the Discipline upon whicli the South had so long and confidently reposed, 
and that the /ufwre re/aiions of the slave holding and non-slave holding Conferences, 
would have to be adjusted upon a diff'erent basis. This conviction produced the Protest, 
and after protracted and anxious deliberation, the parties "in General Conference 
assembled," mutually agreed upon a "constitutional plan" of separation, giving to each 
division distinct and independent jurisdiction. 

In offering some remarks in the shape of an outline argument upon the rights and 
powers of Episcopacy, and the General Conference, respectively, before we close, it is 
not intended to touch the theological argument distinguishing a Bishop from a Presby- 
ter, nor yet to discuss the scriptural rights and claims of a Christian Bishop, but mere- 
ly to fix the place, and ascertain the true relations and consequent constitutional riglits 
of a Bishop of the Methodist Episcopal Church, as the chief executive ojjicer known in 
its government. The difference of opinion on this subject, between the North and the 
South, the Protest and Reply, turns entirely upon the strictly ecclesiastical relations of 
a Bishop in the government of the Church. About the scriptural character of a Chris- 
tian Bishop we may differ in 0|)inion, but have no dispute. The incipient controversy, 
likely to become as serious, in many respects, as that on slavery, iiinges, in every ele- 
mentary sense, upon the Bishop's proper constitutional participation in the governing 
power of the Church. In the theory of Methodist Church government, as found in the 
Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and variously explained and illustrated 
in the history and publications of the Church, Bishops are regarded as a third order in 
the ministry only, in view of ihe'iT governing powers as church or ecclesiastical rulers. 
They are a third order, not in the institution of the Christian Ministry, as derived from 
Christ, but in the structure of the government which claims to be divinely authorized, 



127 

because consistent with the doctrine and practice of the New Testament, without being 
required by it, to the exclusion of other forms of government. Or still more explicit- 
ly, the present controversy turns upon the distribution, by the organic laws of the 
Church, of the necessary powers and attributes of every government, between the 
Episcopacy and General Conference. No question arises as to what ouglU to be the 
distribution of power, but the inquiry is absolutely restricted to the fact of distribution, 
as the government is known to have been organized and administered. It does not de- 
volve upon us, nor would it be at all in place, to show in what respects the govern- 
ment might have been more consistently or advantageously adjusted. The only ques- 
tion is, how has it been adjusted in point of fact? What are the constitution and laws, 
and what is the evidence of practice and usage, as it regards the existing conflict of 
right and claim between the Episcopacy and the General Conference] After what man- 
ner, by whom, and for what purposes was Episcopacy introduced and established] 
How, and by whom, and with what power and rights was the General Conference or- 
ganized] In what relation do they stand to each other] What are the proper func- 
tions of each] In what defined relation, especially, does each stand to the legislative, 
judicial, and executive power of the government] These and similar topics become 
the true text of discussion, apart from all speculation as to how things might have been 
better arranged. We offer no defence of Methodist Episcopacy. With the abstract 
right or wrong of its theory wc have nothing to do. Whether it have more or less 
power than it ought to have, is a question not mooted at all. What is the theory, and 
what the vested power and rights of the Episcopacy, by our present form of constitu- 
tional government, is the true and only question. It is charged in the Protest, and be- 
lieved in the South, that the late General Conference invaded riglits originally secured 
to the Episcopacy as a constitutional trust, and over which the General Corference has 
no control, except in its judicial capacity, upon conviction of misconduct, and forfeit- 
ure of right. We have never doubted, for a moment, that the General Conference 
transcended its powers in action, and avowed principles and opinions subversive of the 
constitution and government of the Church. This opinion is not confined to the South. 
Many, among the old and the wise of the North, entertain it, and are not without fear 
and anxiety as to the future. 

In the very cursory examination we shall be able to give this subject, we sjiall do 
little more than attempt to indicate the data and trains of reasoning connected with the 
conclusions we avow. The Majority of the late General Conference claim, in behalf of 
that body, that it is the source of Episcopal power in the Methodist Episcopal Church. 
This claim will be found in the Debates, the Reply, and in all the Northern Advocates. 
It has been put forth with significant minuteness in a hundred different forms. Taking 
rank among the notabilities of Bishop Hamline's really able and eloquent speech, it has 
continued to maintain its prominence down to the last hebdomadal effusions of the 
Northern press, and some great men have gone so far as to give notice that vows are 
upon them to sacrifice even life, if it be necessary, upon the altar of its defence ! We 
trust, however, tliat such costly sacrifices will not be found necessary. Meanwhile, let 
us attend to the claim itself. What has been the doctrine of the Church on the subject 
for the sixty years of its existence] The testimony of Dr. Coke, the first Bishop of 
the Methodist Episcopal Church, is, that "Mr. Wesley was recognized by the whole 
body of American Methodists as the fountain of our Episcopal office." Dr. Emory 
says, "Mr. Wesley did institute an Episcopacy for the American Methodists." The 
Wesleyan Methodist Magazine says, "the Episcopacy itself was of Mr. Wesley's en- 
acting.''^ In the Minutes and Discipline of 1780, the Episcopacy of the Church is ex- 



128 

pressly said to be derived from Wesley "by regular order and succession." Dr. Emory 
says, "if the ordination of Dr. Coive, (as Bishop,) was not an ordination proper, and 
not a mere appointment to office, it was certainly a very solemn mockery — a trifling 
with sacrtd things.'" Dr. Sangs sayr,, "the Methodist Episcopal Church was organized 
under the direction of Mr. Wesley," Dr. Coke distinctly informs us he acted, in the 
organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church, ''under delegated authority from Mr. 
Wesley." Mr. Wesley having ordained one, and provided, by formal commission, for 
the ordination of the other, says, "I have appointed Dr. Coke and Mr. Asbury Joint 
Siiperintendants." The Discipline speaks of "letters of Episcopal ordination" receiv- 
ed from Mr. Wesley, and also informs us that the Conference of 1784, when the Church 
was organized, ''received" Coke and Asbury as their Bishops, appointed by Wesley, 
"being fully satisfied of the validity of their Episcopal ordination.'''' In the ordination 
credentials of Cuke and Asbury, there is no allusion to any power or right, as derived 
from the American Preachers, by election. Dr. Elliott says, that "Mr. Wesley having 
full power a^ndi perfect right to do so, provided for the American Methodists a plan of 
Church government and Church offices.''^ He says, Wesley was "the acknowledged 
Bishop of the connection in America." He says, "we had no possible chanceXo obtain 
an Episcopacy except from Wesley." He speaks of Wesley as the "leading agent" in 
the organization of the Metiiodist Episcopal Church. He says the American Metho- 
dists appealed to him "as their Bishop or Chief Presbyter," with right to govern them. 
He declares Wesley "ecclesiastically called to this Episcopal work." He maintains 
that o?<rs, "as received from Wesley, is a genuine Episcopacy." The venerable Mor- 
rell says, of the original institution of Methodist Episcopacy, "distinct ordination 
proves a different degree of order, if Mr. Wesley's conduct is to be admitted in proof." 
Coke and Asbury say Mr. Wesley consecrated the former Bishop, and directed him to 
consecrate the latter, "that our Episcopacy might descend from himself ." Dr. Bangs 
says, "Mr. Wesley ordained Dr. Coke to this very office," (the Episcopal,) and sent 
liim to America "ivilh power to ordain others, and exercise functions which appertained 
not to simple Presbyters." He says, of Methodist Episcopacy, it was of Mr. Wesley's 
"own creation — the child of his choice." He adds, "Mr. Wesley certainly intended 
Dr. Coke and Mr. Asbury to exerciae jurisdiction over the zchole Church in America." 
And again, "Episcopal powers were certainly invested in them''^ by Mr. Wesley, and, 
says the Doctor, there "was an Episcopal jurisdiction, to all intents and purposes." 
Dr. Emory says, further, "Mr. Wesley established an Episcopal order of Ministers." 
"Mr. Wesley intended to establish the ordination of an order of Superintendents, to 
act as Bishops in fact." He affirms Mr. Wesley "did, in fact, claim and exercise Epis- 
copal authority" in America, and u'as, in fact, our flrst Bishop. P. P. Sandford says5 
"Metiiodist Episcopacy emanated from Wesley." Dr. Phcebus says, "our orders in the 
Ciiurch are from God, we received them from Christ by Weshy.'" Again, Dr. Bangs 
says, "John W es]ey , the founder of Methodist Episcopacy." He adds, "Wesley was 
the head of the connection, and as such gave la2v and direction to the whole bodv." 
Charles Wesley says of his brother, "he consecrated a Bishop and sent him to Ameri- 
ca." Dr. Coke says, "from Wesley I received my commission." This is the common 
current language of our Church writers. All unite in tracing the Episcopal office to 
"Wesley as its source and fountain. How the General Conference came to be mixed up 
and united with tlie autiiority of Wesley, in giving birth and perpetuity to SIctliodist 
Episcopacy, we shall see at proper length in its place, and will only remark here, that 
the confusion of origin and misapprehension, as to strictly Episcopal investiture, seem 
to have been occasioned by two circumstances especially : 1st, The purpose of Asbury 



129 

not to accept ordination, as directed by Wesley, without the previous concurrence of 
the American Preachers, and the fact tliat they did' concur, both in his case and Coke's. 
And, 2d, The additional fact, that in the instance of all their coadjutors or successors, 
it was determined that the designation should be by the body of Traveling Ministers. 
From these facts, two things have been assumed as vital to Methodist Episcopacy. 1st, 
That the body of American rreacliers were creatively concerned in its origination ; and 
2nd, That the rights and authority of the Investiture— the office, are, in every proper 
sense, derived from them. Both these conclusions are not only faulty, but erroneous, 
as we shall have occasion to see, and have been used as the premises of other conclu- 
sions equally untenable. 

At present, however, let us briefly enquire after the rights and powers of the Epis- 
copacy, as avowed and advocated by the Church since its first organization. A brief 
general glance at the subject here will be sufficient. Other necessary views of the 
subject will come in elsewhere. Bishop Asbury says, "there is not, nor indeed in my 
mind can there be, a perfect equality between a constant President, (Bishop,) and those 
over whom he always presides:'' Dr. Emory says, from Stillingiieet, in relation to the 
ceremony of Episcopal ordination, "the bare imposition of hands did not confer any 
power, but with that ceremony they joined those icords whereby they did confer author- 
ity:' Dr. Bangs says, in relation to the Episcopacy of the Methodist Church in the 
United States, "the British Methodists have no visible head, but we have." Dr. Emory, 
in showing Bishops to be superior to Presbyters, speaks of a Bishop as the "constitu- 
ted organ" of the Church, for the purposes of ordination and jurisdiction. Dr. Bangs 
remarks, "as to ihe government, Wic title sufficiently ascertains its distinctive character, 
it being in fact and name Episcopal:' And again, speaking of a Bishop of the Metho- 
dist Episcopal Church, he maintains he is "a superior minister, possessing a delegated 
jurisdiction, chiefly of an executive character." So, also, Dr. Emory, "the forms of 
ordination prepared for us by Mr. Wesley, for setting apart our Superintendents and 
Elders, were merely an abridgement of the forms of the Church of England, for setting 
apart Bishops and' Priests, clearly intending the same ecclesiastical officers in each case:' 
Dr. Bangs says, further, of our Bishops, that they are the "Chief Ministers" of the 
Church.^ Also, that "at the organization of the Church, in 1784, the power of appoint- 
ing the Preachers was invested in the Bishops." Pie also says, "we approximate near- 
er', in respect to the power of ordination, to the Presbyterians, while, as it respects the 
power of jurisdiction, we form nearly a. parallel line with the Protestant Episcopalians." 
He adds, of Bishops, "this order of Ministers is recognized in our Church ; to them is 
committed the chief government of the Church ; they are consecrated especially lor this 
service." The Conference of 1784 resolved, "we will form ourselves into an Episco- 
pal Church, under the direction of Superintendents, &c." Dr. En.ory affirms, "Mr. 
Wesley established an Episcopal order of Ministers, and recommended to us a solemn 
form for the setting apart and ordaining such an order ; a form for the ordaining of Su- 
perintendents among ns, in the same manner that Bishops are ordained in the Church 
of England, with the same solemnities, and for the same purposes— Xo preside over the 
flock of Christ, including the Presbyters:' He adds, "is not an Episcopal order oT 
Ministers an Episcopacy, in fact?" Also, "if, by Superintendents, Mr. Wesley did 
not mean that order of Ministers, denominated by the Church of England, and the 
Protestant Episcopal Church, Bishops, neither, by Elders, did he mean that order of 
Ministers denominated by those Churches, Priests." The Doctor continues, "Dr. Coke 
was set apart by Mr. Wesley to superintend and preside over the lohole body of Methodist 
Preachers on this continent, and to exercise all the poxcers usually considered Episcopal" 

17 



130 

And further, he speaks of the ^'delegated jurisdiction of our Bishops." He says, "our 
Bishops are an order of Ministers distinct from, and superior to, otiier Presbyters, in 
that extent of jurisdidion, and in those executive poicers delegated to them." Bishop 
McKendree says, "a Bishop having the general oversight of the temporal and spiritual 
concerns of the Church, is, of course, authorized to attend to any and all matters, 
small and great, in the execution of Discipline." The authorities and evidence thus 
cited, may be regarded as general in language, and miscellaneous in bearing. This, 
to some extent, is true, but at the same time, Vv'hen we come to apply the language, in 
each instance, and by analysis seek its meaning, we meet with nothing vague or inex- 
plicit, but the whole, strikingly consistent in all its parts, is found drifting in the same 
direction, and conveying the definite idea of a pervading principle of action — a substan- 
tive power of control, in the government of the Methodist Episcopal Church. This 
guiding principle, this directing agency, may not be, in itself, or in relation to other 
things, Vv-hat many would have it; it may be too strong for some, too weak for others ; 
fault may be found, and difficulties urged; objections may be interposed, and consequen- 
ces dreaded ; Scylla may be started back from on the one hand, and Charybdis on the 
other; but all this has nothing to do with the question engrossing us, which is simply to 
ascertain, if possible, what is the doctrine, what the avowed opinions of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church on this subject? And, in an enquiry of this kind, appeal must be had 
to the constitution and laws of the Church, to precedent and usage, the acts of adminis- 
tration, the nature and fitness of things, as well as the judgment and views of the best 
accredited expounders of the polity and discipline of the Church. Neither party can set- 
tle the question by proclamation, or an "order in council ;" the law and ihe testimony 
must becnme the rule of judgment. We do not obtrude our own opinions. We prove 
our positions by the founders, fathers and guardians of the Church. Speaking for them- 
selves, they tell another guise tale than that of the Protest about Methodist Episcopacy. 
An Episcopacy of which Wesley is the "fountain," which he "instituted" and "enacted," 
derived from him in "regular order and succession ;" an Episcopal "ordination proper, 
not a mere appointment to office;" Episcopal Church, "organized under the direction of 
AVesley ;" joint Bishops "appointed" by Wesley; "Episcopal ordination received from 
Wesley." The American Preachers "received" their Bishops, as "appointed" by Wesley; 
"fully satisfied of the validity of their Episcopal ordination." Wesley "ihe acknowl- 
edged Bishop of the connexion." Church government and officers "provided" by Wes- 
ley ; no chance of nn Episcopacy "except from Wesley." He "called to this Episcopal 
work;" this a "genuine Episcopacy; " "descended" from Wesley; result of a "dis- 
tinct ordination" by Wesley ; conferring powers not to be claimed by "simple Presby- 
ters ; Episcopacy of "Wesley's own creation;" a "child" of his; Wesley giving Coke 
and Asbury "jurisdiction over the ichole Church in America;" "investing in them 
Episcopal powers;" "establishing an Episcopal order;" "Bishops in fact;" Wesley 
"claiming and exercising Episcopal authority; " from Wesley "emanated" Episcopacy ; 
ecclesiastical "orders received from Wesley;" Wesley "the Founder of Methodist Epis- 
copacy ;" "head of the connexion ;" gave law and direction to the whole body ;" "con- 
secrated a Bishop;" Episcopal "commission" received from Wesley. Now, if all, or 
but a small part of this be true, how is Episcopacy an emanation from the General Con- 
ference? In wliat sense is the General Conference its source? With what show of 
truth or tairncss was the claim set up, for the first time, at the last meeting of that 
body? But again, a Bishop ''superior'" to those over whom he "presides;" "authori- 
ty" conferred by "ordination ;" Bishop the "head" of the CImrch ; the "constituted or- 
gan" of the Church; Episcopacy giving "distinctive charnqter" to the government of 



131 

the Church ; a "superior Minister;" having '-delegated jurisdiction." The same "ec- 
clesiastical olHcer" as Bishop in the English Establishment; "chief Minister ;" "pow-^ 
er invested" in the Bishop ; "power of ordination and jurisdiction ;" having the "chict 
government;" "to preside over the whole body" of Ministers ; with "all the powers 
usually considered Episcopal; "distinct from, and superior to Presbyters; both as to 
"ordination and jurisdiction ;" having the "general oversight." It is not more cer- 
tainly the doctrine of the Methodist Church, that Episcopacy was exclusively derived 
from Wesley, than that it is a constitutional subslantice potcer, and not merely mimste- 
ria/ao-ency'in the structure and government of the Church. The language we have 
quoted can be misunderstood by no one. Methodist Episcopacy, as an inslUute, both in 
view of its origination and perpetuity, is derived from Wesley, and Wesley alone, ac- 
cording to all the chosen witnesses of the Church. To concur with Wesley, as peti- 
tioners for the boon, and ^'receive" at his hand, was all the American Preachers or So- 
cieties had to do with the matter. 

Dr. Emory, in giving the model of Methodist Episcopacy, from Stillingfleet, gives 
the following quotations, and adopts them as principles of Methodist polity : ''The 
Chm-ch delegates to tfie Episcopacy a more peculiar exercise of the power of jurisdic- 
tion." "The jurisdiction of Presbyters was restrained by 7nutual consent." "It be- 
lon<rs to those who are appointed" (Bishops.) "By this we may understand how law- 
furthe exercise of an Episcopal power may be in the Church of God, supposing an 
equality in all Church officers as to tlie power of order." "The Church may, in a pe- 
culiar manner, single out some of its officers for the due administration of Episcopal 
power." "By the great harmony of both, carrying on the affairs of the Church. 
"Tiie manao-ement of ordination and Church power, by the Presidency of the Bishop, 
and the concurrence of the Presbytery." "A twofold power belonging to Church offi- 
cers, a power of order and a power o^ jurisdiction." StiUingfleet insists that the pow- 
er of ordination and jurisdiction inherent in Presbyters, is, upon iLs de!e-n.tion to the 
Episcopacy ^'restrained (in the Presbyters) by ecclesiastical laivs." In relation to these 
and numerous other positions to the same effect, Dr. Emory remarks, emphatically, "so 
say we " Bishop Asbury says, "if our title had not been Methodist Episcopal Church, 
and if the English translation had not rendered Episcopoi Bishops, well contented am 
I to be called Superintendent, not Bishop. They say we (Bishops and Elders) are the 
same order ; then why not the same names in Greek and English? Why not Deacons 
and Bishops of the same order]" The Discipline of 1789, enquires, "what is the prop- 
er origin of Episcopal authority in our Church]" In the answer, election by the Con- 
ferenc°e is not recognized as in any way creative of Episcopacy, or as being its source. 
Bishop Hamline affirms, of Bishop Roberts, "through his peers the Holy Ghost made 
him overseer. That office, (Episcopal,) he executed by the hishest warrant on earth. 
He shed lustre on his own ordained circle." He adds, "Episcopal prerogatives pre- 
scribed by the law of the Church." The ordination service in making and consecrating 
a Bishop, assumes that the person ordained is called of God to the special ministry of 
a Bishop, as distinguished from Elder and Deacon, for each of which orders we have a 
separate ordination. Dr. Elliott says, "no change which obstructs them in the dis- 
charcre of their duty, can be effected constitutionally by the General Conference. Dr. 
Emo"°ry aro-ues at length, and conclusively, that a resort to the solemnities of ordina- 
tion, in the case of mere appointment to labor, is a novelty unknown to Methodism, and 
treats the supposition as absurd and ridiculous. la these quotations, the Church dele- 
gales power to the Bishop ; this power no longer belongs to the Presbyters ; the Church 
singles out men for the exercise of Episcopal power; the Bishop presides, the Presby- 



132 

ters concur; the latter are re.lrictcd by law-by ^nulual consent in the act of dde'ra- 
/,«^ power; difference of or^er in the sense be/ore noticed, is argued from difference 
of title; authority and r,ght are not derived from deciion in any conclusive sense. The 
Bishop is chosen overseer by the Holy Gh-.st, is accredited by the highest warrant of 
earth ; his prerogatives settled by prescriplion of law ; his circle is Us own-tin exclu- 
sive sphere; his ministry is special, by God's appointment; theGeneral Confereace even 
IS without power or right, (unless usurped,) to obstruct him in the discharge of duty or- 
dination IS a sacred consecration to office, not a mere appointment to labor, as most ab- 
surdly contended by the late General Conference. Can a lithe of all this claim be found 
in the Protest] Does that instrument go half as far as these guides of the Church^ 
And beside, the Protest merely designed asserting the general doctrine of the Church on 
thesubject. and showing that it had been departed from, and was misrepresented by the 
Majority. The object of the Protest was, to show that the General Conference claimed 
what, by constitutional right, belonged to the Episcopacy; and, moreover, attempted to 
assert the claim by unlawful means. The Conference, for example, assumed the ric^ht 
within themselves, to make and constitute Bishops ; they assumed the power of remo^val 
because permitted by the Annual Conferences to select the incumbent ; they claimed 
that the powers invested in the Episcopacy before the General Conference existed were 
nevertheless, found only in themselves ; that they could rightfully perform all the func- 
tions or Episcopacy-that they could make a Bi.hop to day and unmake him to-morrow, 
without any infringement of right, the preposterous absurdity was avowed that they 
couldof right, having all power, do any thing they saw proper, not only without law 
but in violation of it, excepting only the half dozen items prohibited in the Restrictive 
Rules. It ,3 not meant to say that all these positions were formally avowed by the 
conference as such, but each was assumed in behalf of ihe Conference, as may be seen 
by reference to the Debates, the Manifesto, and the Northern advocates of subsequent 
date, and so far as we know, none of them have been disavowed by any considerable 
portion of the Northern Church. Each has the ineffaceable endorsement of Bishop 
Hamline, and nas received the equally ineflaceable endorsement of the Majority in h^s 
election. In a word, we have the type of a Nero Episcopacy. We have the effect of 
additional le^.slat.on without its forms, changing the relations and rights, if not en- 
tirely subverting the old Wesleyan Episcopacy of the Church. Which is the better 
theory-which should be preferred by the Church is a question not in dispute. The 
charge preferred ngainst the Majority is, that they have innovated upon the existing, 
system, and have done so by means unlawful and dangerous, because revolutionary i^ 
their tendency. 

Dr. Bangs says, "three forms of consecration, all separate and distinct." Amoncr 
the grounds of Episcopal claim in his own instance, Bishop Asbury ranks "divine au°- 
thoruy, "seniority in America," "ordination," by Coke and others, and the "si.ns of 
an Apostle, (meaning the manifest approval of Heaven and the Church) showing that 
although he certainly attached value to his election (by being "received" as the..- 
pointec '^^ ^yesley,) yet he did not rely upon it as in itself accrediting his Episcopal 
claims. Coke and Asbury inform us that the Episcopacy instituted by Wesley in the 
consecration of Coke, and the "commission" he gave him to consecrate As'ury as 
B,s op. was acknou^eclged and received by the Conference of 1731, as "the chief Synod 
of the Churc ." They well knew this Conference of L.y Pi-eachers could do notliin. 
morethan ac nowe geand receive. The Methodist Epi.copaJ- Church declares he^r 
L, hops to be "called of God, according to his word, to the u-ork and office of a Dishop,^^ 
and unless God and his word be mocked, all conventional "regulations" will be con- 



133 

formed to this great primary fact, assumed by the Church. The "directions" of Wes- 
ley, forming the only warrant of the American societies to become a separate organi- 
zation, recognized no right of election by the preachers, in view of the Episcopal of- 
fice. They had avowed and published their want of right, their utter incompetency to 
organize a Church without Wesley— of course they could not elect Bishops. The/«/^ 
validity of our Episcopacy, as exdusivebj derived from Wesley, must be admitted, or 
tee. have none. There is no Presbytery in the Methodist Episcopal Church, except as 
created by its Episcopacy, and the supposition that Episcopacy was accredited by what 
itself had produced, is, to say the least of it, not the theory of Methodical Episcopacy, 
as sei forth by all the defenders of the Church, and especially in the authorities to 
which we appeal in the brief argument we are now sketching. Is there any thinir in 
the Protest elevating the Episcopacy to half the height indicated by the positions Just 
cited? And how do they contrast with the newly adopted creed of the Majority, which 
throws around a Bishop such an ambiguity of right claim and relation, "now high, now 
low," that instead of his taking his place in the government as an officer of the consti- 
tution, with well defined rights and corresponding duties and claims, subject only to 
the control of law, he is but the quadrennial agent of a General Conference Majority, 
and is liable to removal or degradation, whenever they deem it expedient to exercise 
the power they assume? The advocates of the new theory will of course alleire that 
the Presbyters of the Methodist Episcopal Church, have at any rate, regular Presby- 
terial ordination, and that since they obtained it, it has been competent for them to 
create an Episcopacy upon the Stillingflect model. This, however, will involve sev- 
eral difficulties. 

1st. iu?'hodist Episcopacy did not so originate, had no such origin— the truth of his- 
tory can never give it such a character; nor has an Episcopacy of this kind ever been 
instituted by them. Our Episcopacy, and the plan of its perpetuation, both pre-date 
the existence of Presbyters. The right and power of ordination, as they existed in 
Wesley, were transferred to our Bishops, and constitutionally invested in them, before a 
Presbyter existed in the Church. The constitution of the Church at the time of its or- 
ganization, and ever since, deprives the Presbyters of the power of ordination while 
there is a Bishop in the Church. 

2d. The order of succession precludes the supposition, that for the reason assigned, 
the Episcopacy of the Church is in the hands of the Presbytery. The organic laws of 
the Church in the very provision which gave being to Presbyters, as such, restricted all 
the rights of ordination to the Episcopacy, and declare that this investiture can only be- 
come void by the extinction of the original order of Bishops. The right of the Presby- 
ters to select the incumbent does not affect the argument. The Presbyters may select 
a thousand to be made Bishops, but in themselves can iiever make one, while a solitary 
incumbent of the office survives in the Church. 

3d. Should the only alternative contingency which can possibly give the right of 
Episcopal ordination to the Presbyters ever take place, the right does not belong to 
them one moment after its exercise in the consecration of a Bishop. They can in°no 
event, by the constitution, ordain an Elder or Deacon, or more than one Bishop at a 
time. The moment their consecration of a Bishop is complete, the right of ordination 
ceases to exist in the Presbyters. This may not be as it should bfi, if any will have it 
so, but we have only to do with things as they are, as we find them in the constitution 
and the lavvs. 

4th. From the preceding data, it is clear, that until the existing theory of Methodist 
Church polity is utterly subverted, it can never become the right of the Presbyters of 



131 

the Clmrch to change the character of our present Episcopacy or institute one of a dif- 

fcrent kind. 

But let us see further how others have thought and reasoned on the general subject : 
Dr. Coke, speaking of the organization of the Church in 1784, under the direction of 
himself and Asbury, as Bishops, by appointment of Wesley, says, -Mr. Wesley has de- 
termined the point." The Discipline informs us that Wesley "commissioned and direct- 
ed" Dr. Coke to set apart Mr. Asbury as Bishop. 

Dr. Bangs says, "the Traveling Ministry, consisting of licensed Preachers, Deacons, 
Elders, Bishops. The duties of each are prescribed and constitutional restraints limit 
the povver of each officer in the execution of his trust. Regular tribunals are constitu- 
ted, rules of judgment are laid dov.-n, and the whole process by which the supposed 
delinquent is to be tried, acquitted, or condemned, is clearly defined and prescribed." 
The Bishops in their address, 1844, discussing the constitutional limits of their office, 
say "the office of a Bishop is almost exclusively executive:' Dr. Emory insists that to 
do justice to the character of Methodist Episcopacy, it is essential, while we claim for 
it no elevation above ihe frimary rights of the Presbytery or body of Elders, as it re- 
gards the original potter o/ ordmaiJon, superiority must be claimed on the ground of 
special invest°ment,in relation both to the power of ordination and of jurisdiction, and 
that this power can only he invested by Episcopal consecration, as constitutionally pro- 
vided for. Bishop Asbury, in attempting to show how the Episcopal ciiaracter of Tim- 
othy types the true Episcopacy of the Church in modern times, distinguishes his Epis- 
copal ordination by St. Paul, from his Presij/ierwZ ordination by "laying on of the hands 
of Presbytery," and transferring his reasoning to Methodist Episcopacy, it is plainly 
his purpose to show, that special consecration is essential to the office, and that election 
is nothing more than a mere expression of choice and endorsement of personal fitness. 
That Bishops Emory and Waugh took the same view ot the subject at the date of Bish- 
op vSoule's election, is plain from the language they held with regard to him; they say, 
"just elected to the Episcopal office, not yet ordained ox &vm axi existing ^Wao^ m 
fact." In their judgment ordination was essentially constituent of the office. And ia 
this way, in seemingly unrelated but nevertheless essentially connected parts and par- 
cels, the evidence increases upon us at every step in ihe examination, that Episcopacy 
in the organic economy of the Methodist Episcopal Church, is a constitutional principh 
of government and law, and is only subject to the control of the Cxeneral Conference 
by regulation of law, as will further be seen in the progress of the argument. 

Morrell says, "Mr. Wesley framed the constitution of our Church." "Dr. Coke had 
the orders of Mr. Wesley to ordain Superintendents." "Dr. Coke did actually ordain 
three orders." Dr. Pha^bus says, "our government grew up under the appointment of a 
Superintendent by consent of preachers and people. As such our Episcopacy is con- 
stitutional. It cannot be altered but by the general consent of preachers and people. It 
must be done by tlie common consent of all parties concerned." Sandford distinctly re- 
cognize:-, the "constitution" of the Church, as recommended by Wesley and adopted by 
the Conference of 1784. Morrell says, "it was written in our constitution:' He tells 
us Wesley's name was left off the American Minutes, as the head of the American 
connection, to prevent him from exercising "unconstitutional power" in the recall or 
removal of Bishop Asbury. Title page of Discipline in 1786 says, "forming the con- 
stitution of said Church." The preface to the fifth edition of the Discipline styles that 
Discipline the ^'constitution of our Church." Dr. Bangs speaks of the "organization," 
that is, constitution of the Church, as requiring duties and conferring privileges pecu- 
liar to each order and office of the ministry, and afilrms "so long as these duties are 



135 

performed with fidelity, the annexed privileges are freely and amply secured." In the 
address of the General Conference of 1824, it is avowed "the General Rules and the 
Articles of Religion form, to every member of our Church dislinclivehj, a constitution." 
In 17S9, the Discipline claims to be the "constitution of the Church." R. Emory re- 
marks, "in 1808 an important change was made in the constitution of the Church by the 
establishment of a delegated General Conference." Dr. Bangs says the object had in 
view by the Annual Conferences before the meeting of the General Conference in 1808, 
was "to provide for a future delegated General Conference, whose powers should be 
defined and limited by constitutional restrictions." These and similar testimonies go to 
show a constitutionalin'v esimeni and distribution of rights and powers among the sever- 
al departments and various offices of the Church, including especially the Episcopacy 
and General Conference. They also show that the position of Bishop Hamline and 
others, assuming the Restrictive Articles io be the constitution of the Churcli, is utterly 
unworthy of credit. The very structure of the government, and the whole history of 
its administration, not less than the constantly avowed opinions of the Church since its 
organization in 1784, demonstrate most conclusively, that the position is without any 
foundation in either the history or philosophy, the facts or reasons of Methodist Church 
polity. 

We have seen that the governing power in the Llethodist Episcopal Church belongs 
to the Traveling Ministry, and that the question at issue in this controversy is, how 
and in what proportion this power is distributed among its different departments, coun- 
cils, and tribunals, as coming into existence and use, and being created and established 
at different times. Our Church organization obviously presents several departments, 
more or less mixed in character as it regards their functions, but still sufficiently dis- 
tinct and independant of each other for the practical purposes of government. 1st. 
The Episcopacy or General Superintendency. 2d. Annual Conferences. 3d. General 
Conferences. 4lh. The General Pastorate or Traveling Ministry in their appointed 
charges of labor and administration. 

We notice the first three in the order of their introduction as elementary principles, 
giving form and character to the government. All are to be regarded as great consti- 
tutional arrangements. Among these we must of necessity find distributed, the Legis- 
lative, the Judicial, and Executive powers of the government, and the question aiises, 
what is the distribution? Or is it true, as has been assumed, that there is no actual 
distribution, nor yet any laio of distribution, and that all the functions of government 
are commingled and meshed up together, to be exercised at discretion by the several 
departments and organic bodies having general control. That the distribution has not 
been a careful and well settled one may be true, but the assumption that there has been 
no distribution at all, afTecting the different classes of power, except in a few instan- 
ces connected with each, must, we think, be rejected by the good sense of the Church. 
Many of the authorities already cited, throw material light upon this subject, and show 
that a very different view of the subject has obtained among the most distinguised men 
of the Church in every period of its history. In answer to the question, "who shall 
compose the General Conferencel" the Discipline says expressly, "one of the General 
Superintendents shall preside in the General Conference." Again, this Presidency or 
Headship is a part of the "Plan of General Superintendency," the first duty of the 
Bishop is "to preside in our Conferences," Annual and General. Their constitutional 
oversight extends to all the "temporal and spiritual business of the Church," and of 
course and especially to the General Conference, as that body does a large share of the 
business of the Church. Waiters, the first American Methodist Preacher, says, "the 



13G 

Bishops business is to preside in our Conferences, (Annual and General) and in case of 
an equal division on a question, he has the casting vote." Sandford says, "the Gener- 
al Conference is composed of Bishops who are its Presidents, &c." Dr. Elliott says, 
"to preside in our Conferences, comprehends the presidency of the General Confer- 
ence." Dr. Coke says to the General Conference in 180S, that he will reside in Amer- 
ica permanently, in his character of Bishop if the Conference, will "agree that I shall 
have a full right to give my judgment in every thing in the General and Annual Con- 
ferences on the making of laws, the stationing of the Preachers, sending out Mission- 
aries, and evenj thing else, which as a Bishop, belongs to my ojjice. I want no new 
condition ; I only want it to be perfectly ascertained, that I shall be authorized by you 
Xo fulfil 7ny I'^'ice, without which, our reci;)roca^ engagements are a perfect 7iuUity." 
Dr. Bangs speaks of "powers ceded to the Episcopacy.'^ Bishop McKendree says, "by 
virtue of a delegated power from the General Conference," (as the organ of the 
Church's authority and action,) "I hold the reigns of government." Dr. Bangs says 
of Llelhodist Episcopacy, "this superintendency is provided for in the organization of 
the Methodist Episcopal Church.', In their Address, in 1S40, the Bishops speak of the 
^'constitutional poicers of the General Superintendants, of their general executive admin- 
istration, and their ojjicial department in the Church." Dr. Emory endorses the opinion 
of Stillingfleet, that the form of Church government which approaches nearest the 
primitive, is the "Presidency of Bishops for life." At the General Conference of 1804, 
Dr. Bangs informs us, Coke, Asbury, and Whatcoat, acted as "Presidents of the Gen- 
eral Conference." Mr. Morrell assures us, that the Conference of 1787 decided that 
even "Mr. Wesley had no authority to remove Mr. Asbury," after he had been consti- 
tuted Bishop of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States. Dr. Emory 
says of Bishop George, "he regarded the duties of his place and office as specified in 
the Discipline, in the light of a contract, by which lie had solemnly engaged to be 
bound." In 1805, Bishop Asbury gives notice to the "world" that he considered his 
election by the Conference of Lay Preachers in 1784, as but one of several sources whence 
he derived his Episcopal authority. Coke and Asbury say, "Episcopacy took its rise 
in Wesley." They rank it am.ong the functions of Episcopacy, "to meliorate the se- 
verity of Discipline, to relieve the people under every oppression. In them (the Bish- 
ops) the people have a refuge — to them they may appeal, and before them lay all their 
complaints and grievances." The Discipline of 1789 asks, "how is a Bishop to be 
constituted in future?" Election a new method of selecting the incumbent. It may 
strike the reader tiiat tiiere is in these citations no principle of coherence affording any 
reason why they should appear in the same connection. It must be recollected, howev- 
er, that it is the simple object of tiiese strictures to show that the Protest did not as- 
sume, in behalf of the Episcopacy, any thing beyond its allowed claims, currently 
conceded in the doctrines and history of the Church. Any proofs, therefore, going to 
show what these claims have been for si.xty years, must be directly pertinent as well 
as important. The testimonies just quoted, prove that Bishops of the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church are, by cnnslilulional right. Presidents of the Annual and General Con- 
ferences, and of course are members and integral parts of them, when in sesuon, bo- 
side having the executive oversight of all the members of both, in the intervals of their 
meeting. The Discipline includes them with others, in "composing" the Body. Pres- 
idency and oversight are scarcely compatible with the idea of their being the mere 
chairmen of Conference meetings. The right of discussion, of expressing their opin- 
ions on all subjects, of recommendation and remonstrance, seems to be a necessary in- 
ference. It is claimed by Dr. Coke as belonging to the ollice. The reins of government 



137 

are held by delegated power, thar is, power parted with and given in trust for specified 
purposes. Bishops have co?J5/i7!///o72a/ powers; the general excc^^Zu'e adminisiralion is 
theirs; their official relations, rights, and duties, constitute a regular department; their 
Presidency is for life, unless forfeited by misconduct; the appointing power cannot re- 
move, except for reasons destroying the objects of the appointment ; the official relations 
of a Bishop imply a contract between himself and the Churcii. Election had notliing 
to do with the institution of the office, and is but an auxiliary method of perpetuating 
it; the office arose in Wesley, and comes in as a regulating power between the minis- 
try and people. We attempt no defence of the various forms of expression used, 
or claims put forth in the passages quoted. What we may approve or disapprove 
weighs nothing in the controversy. Our business is to show the true doctrine of the 
Church on the subject. 

Among other items regarded by the South as signs of the times with the Northern 
Majority, may be noticed the manifest indifference and irreverence with which the 
solemnities of the Episcopal ordination service have been treated. It has doubtless 
been seen and felt that truth and falsehood resemble as little as the new tiieory of 
Episcopacy and the ceremony in question. And if the former be true, the latter is 
certainly a chapter of rare foolishness, and ought to be expunged, as Bishop Hamline 
cautiously suggests it might be, without detriment to Methodism, as we use no such 
ceremony in the appointment of Book Agents, Editors, Class Leaders, &c.. all of 
course (the assumption is) sustaining, as agents, the same relation to the Church! But 
let us look into this matter a little. The ordination service styled the ^'form and man- 
ner of 7naKing and ordaining a Bishop," assumes that the person so ordained is called 
by the Holy Ghost to the special ministry of a Bishop as distinguished from both Pres- 
byter and Deacon, for each of which orders we have a separate ordination service in no 
way inclusive of the first office or Episcopal consecration. It is assumed that he is 
called to be a Bishop, to a ministration distinguished from all others according to tlie 
will of Christ. It is assumed that being divinely called, he is by the act of ordination, 
admitted to government in the Church of Christ. He is said to be thus admitted to a 
peculiar administration. The people, the Church of Grod, "including the Presbyters," 
Dr. Emory adds, are said to be committed to his charge by tlie same act, and so of ma- 
ny other assumptions to the same effect. Can the man who regards a Bishop as the 
mere agent or officer of the General Conference, liable at any time to removal or depo- 
sition, at the will of tlie Majority, without impeachment or trial, or even cause assign- 
ed, be prepared for honest subscription or submission to a ceremony of consecration, 
every clause of which is in irreconcilable conflict with his avowed opinions as to the 
real character of the Episcopal office] How will this matter be regarded by the well 
informed and pious masses of the Church, even in the North? Will they not agree 
with Bishop Emory, tliat it is "mockery, a trifling with sacred things." Take the ac- 
tion of the General Conference in electing, and that of tlie proper officers in ordaining 
a Bishop. They call him to the work and office of a Bishop in the name of God, and as 
His representatives. They declare him called of Christ and gifted with the graces of 
his spirit "evermore" to perform the duties and "fulfil the course''' of a christian Bish- 
op. They recognize his official elevation as God's own appointment, and during life. 
The consecration is the name of the Trinity, sanctioned and accredited by the solem- 
nities of the sacrament. Now if all this mean that a Bisiiop may be used to-day and 
laid aside to-morrow, without proof (which due form of trial can alone safely test) that 
the consecrated person chosen of God for the purpose, has disqualified himself for the 
trust reposed in him. by a forfeiture of the (?ivine approval; we repeat, if the ceremony 

18 



138 

mean nothing inconsistent with such a view of the subject, then is our ordination ser- 
vice not only unmeaning, but so fraught with the fearful significance of being an 
ungodly mockery, that the sooner it is laid aside the better. I need not remind the 
readers of the Northern papers, that there are already indications by no means ob- 
scure, that the inconsistency between tlie new Episcopal theory and the ordination ser- 
vice, will require their early attention, unless it is found expedient to adjourn the 
movement to a *'more convenient season" for reform. The innovation under notice, 
must prove extensively mischievous in its bearings. It subverts the foundation and 
destroys the tenure of the ministerial office in the Methodist Episcopal Church entirely. 
If ordination in the instance of a Bishop, mean mere appointment to labour, and may 
be fairly typed by the appointment of a Class Leader or Editor, similar views will 
doubtless obtain with regard to the ordination of Elder and Deacon, as there is nothing 
more solemn or sanctioning in the latter than the former, and the result will be, the 
hio-h and holy function of the Ministry, severed from the fastenings of its immemorial 
sanctity, will be sacred only to the purposes of ecclesiastical sway and party domi- 
nation. The position we are now opposing, strikes us as the more strange and sur- 
prising, because we have no accredited instance in the whole history of the Church, of 
ministerial ordination, except /or lift, upon condition of good behaviour. The rights 
and privileges conferred by ordination, as Bishop Emory properly suggests, are mat- 
ter of "contract" between the parties, and while either party does not offend the laws 
of the Church, the rights and privileges reciprocally involved, are perpetual. On 
this ground alone, the action of the late General Conference, in the case of Bishop 
Andrew, must be viewed as an outrage upon his legal and personal rights. It was, 
moreover, a violation of the pledge of the Church, given in his ordination credentials, 
in which the protection and support of the Church are solemnly guarantied, ''so long 
as his spirit, practice, and doctrine, are such as become the gospel of Jesus Christ, and 
he shall submit to and maintain the Discipline and order of the IMethodist Episcopal 
Church in America." It is well known the Majority did not even allege offence, either 
against the laws of Christ or of the Church, and yet in gross violation of this official 
pledge, they withdrew the protection and support the Church had promised. Such con- 
duct shows that God in his word is not allowed to be the judge of sin, of right and 
wrong, nor yet the Church in her laws, but that the caprice and resentments of party 
opinion and feeling, are to become the rule of action and standard of ministerial and 
personal worth. 

The several Annual Conferences up to 1792, were always considered as separate and 
independent bodies, and it was not likely, says Dr. Bangs, "that so many independent 
bodies could be brought to harmonize in all things. The several Annual Conferences 
were considered only as so many parts of the whole body, nothing was considered bind- 
ing upon all, unless it were approved by each and every of these separate Conferences." 
Bishop Asbury styles the General Conference a "grand federal and responsive body." 
The federal relations and reciprocity of right assumed by Bishop Asbury, were merely 
modified, not destroyed by the change, or rather addition to the constitution, giving 
birth to tiio delegated General Conference. It is still a federal responsive body, as 
represented in the Protest, and this very fact gives the reason of the limitation of its 
powers. "The General Conference consists of an equal representation from liie sev- 
eral Annual Conferences," says Dr. Bangs. In what proportion, then, do we seek the 
constitutional inherence of power in enchl This will of course depend upon the fact 
of distribution, already adverted to. In the General Conference certainly so far as the 
constitution clothes them with power. To this extent it is always competent for that 



139 

body to act without control, and informs absolutely conclusive. The cbnstitulion, 
however, is the only commission under which any of the departments can rightfully act. 
And what we wisli to achieve, believing it to be the truth, is to show that the consti- 
tution intended sometiiing like an equal distribution of the powers of government among 
its different departments. When once, some score of years since, acting upon our 
then understanding of ihings, we honestly believed the Episcopacy was likely to dis- 
turb this balance of power, by claiming for itself more than its constitutional share, 
we opposed the supposed usurpation, as now we oppose that of the General Confer- 
ence. We should do the same tiling with regard to the Annual Conferences or gener- 
al Pastorate, were they so to act as to produce a similar conviction. The doctrine for 
which we contend, is simply something like a substantial co-ordination of powers among 
the different departments of the government. This result secured, we ask for nothing 
more. And if to secure it the reduction of Episcopal power shall be found necessary, 
we shall promptly favor the reduction. 

The doctrine of Bishop Hamline, which seems to be extensively endorsed in the 
North, affirming General Conference prerogative to be a just law of action, without de- 
fining or publishing the mode of action, we reject and resist in all its forms, as at 
once dangerous and inadmissible in any government. One of its necessary conse- 
r]uences, is expost facto legislation, without even the usual disguise of legislative and 
judicial construction. Take for instance, the right claimed in behalf of the General 
Conference to appoint the Preachers to their pastoral charges. This right never did 
belong to the General Conference, nor can it while the present constitution of the 
Church exists. If the whole Book of Discipline be regarded as the constitution, in 
general terms, the right is denied to the General Conference ; and if, with Bishop Ham- 
line, we receive the restrictive articles as the constitution, they expressly prohibit the 
General Conference from any such attempt, as this right of appointment forms the 
most important part of the plan of General Superintendency, which they are not al- 
lowed to destroy. But the logic is, the General Conference elect the Bishops, and may 
therefore perform all the duties of Bishops, if they prefer it. Extend the rule a little 
and see how it will work. The Annual Conferences elect the General Conference, and 
therefore, if they prefer, may not only perform all its constitutional duties, but by the 
same rule, get at those of the Episcopacy also. This single dogma carried into prac- 
tice, would immediately subvert the whole government of the Church. Witness its 
effect in the action of the late General Conference, in Bishop Andrews' case, and the 
consequences with which it has been attended. 

The government of the Methodist Episcopal Church is certainly somewhat irregular 
and anomalous in form ; still it has essentially its co-ordinate departments, especially 
the Episcopacy, Annual Conferences and the General Conference, by no means excluding 
the ministry in pastoral charge, apart from their Conference relations. It is an impos- 
sible theory to suppose a government without legislative, judicial, and executive pow- 
ers, and irregularly as these are distributed, they are found in the above departments. 
The General Conference has limited legislative power. It has also a substantive por- 
tion of judicial power, having original jurisdiction in the case of Bishops, and appel- 
late in the instance of members of Annual Conferences. The Annual Conferences 
have a large share of judicial power, retaining in their hands an important portion of 
theleffislative, and meanwhile exercising to a considerable extent, executive functions. 
The Episcopacy is emphatically the Executive Department oHhe Church, ur rather of the 
government, with scarcely a tithe of power froni the other classes. Some of the func. 
lions of the General Conference appear more or less executive in character, but in no 



140 

sense does the General Conference possess any considerable portion of executive power. 
It will be perceived at once, by the good sense of tiie reader, that from the mixed char- 
acter of the distribution of power in the government of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
it becomes the more necessary to guard against the encroachment of one department 
upon another. Such encroachment as shown at large in this Review, has given birth 
to our present difficulties, and the controversy in which the Church is now so unliappi- 
ly involved. We have no wish to reduce the constitutional power of the General Con- 
ference, or increase that of the Episcopacy. We wish no function of the General Con- 
ference transferred to the Episcopacy. We would not add to the aggregate of Episco- 
pal power a single iota, were all the powers of the government within our gift. What 
we except to and resist, is the hitherto unheard of claim of nearly absolute power put 
forth by the Majority of the General Conference in May Jast. The position that "the 
Bishop's term of fsrvice may he limiledor undelcrmincd at pleasure," is so utterly unsup- 
ported by evidence of any kind, and manifestly inconsistent with all the evidence we 
have in the case, that its bare announcement furnishes its own disproof. The position 
invades the constitution at every point in which it can be viewed. It is contradicted 
by the whole tenor of the ordination service, without which we can have no constitu- 
tional Episcopacy. It is disavowed, in terms, by the official certificate of ordinaiion. 
It is without any sanction from the Discipline. It is discredited by all usage, and pos- 
sesses every attribute of a gross and daring innovation. And yet all these revolutiona- 
ry doctrines and legal absurdities, received the full practical sanction of the General 
Conference. Tlie principal asserter of them became their authoritative type and living 
impersonation, by the highest marks of approval and confidence within the gift of the 
Majority. The doctrine in question, therefore, is the doctrine of the Mnjority, and we 
are thus minute, with no view of calling attention to individual character, but for the 
sole purpose of showing that the party claiming to be the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
par excellence, is the party by whom the constitution of the Church has been notorious- 
ly disregarded, and its rights in the same proportion forfeited. The General Confer- 
ence acts under the authority of but a limited commission, and the measure of its su- 
premacy is determined by the limits the constitution imposes. Its powers are in no 
sense absolute, but as properly under the control of the constitution as those of any 
other department. 

Dr. Coke was the father of the General Conference system, and in his circular in 
1791, urging the propriety and necessity of his plan, he proposes the General Confer- 
ence in sum, "as a check upon every thing," that is a great regulating principle of gov- 
ernment, not overriding and capriciously controlling the other departments, but subject- 
ing their action and administration to proper revision and restraint, to be regulated by 
law. As connected with the Presidency of the General Conference, Bishops have been 
in the habit of giving their opinions and advice, offering resolutions, and even voting in 
the instance of a tie. The practice, however, has varied at ditlerent times, and with 
different men. As lately as the General Conference of 1840, one Bishop offered a series 
of resolutions, which were adopted by the Conference, and another gave the casting 
vote on an important question, to which no excej)tion was taken, and both these acts, 
stated upon the Journals, were subsequently approved by the Conference, without dis- 
sent. In fact the Presidents have always been recognized as constitutional members of 
the General Conference, until the new era of 1814. Tiicy are there and such by com- 
mission of the constitution. Bishop Asbury left the sittings of the General Conference 
of 1792, and after absenting himself, wrote back to the Conference, "I am happily ex- 
cused from heljnrg to make taws by which I myself am to be governed;" showing plain- 



141 

ly that he considered himself a member of tlic body, with right to assist in making 
laws. Coke was in the habit of introducing formal resolutions in the General Confer- 
ence. So wrs Asbury. Other Bishops have done the same. Coke and Asbury say, 
'■'■aW the different orders iivdi coinpose our Conferences;" showing that Bishops were 
regarded as constitutional members of the Conferences in which tliey preside, whether 
Annual or General. If Bishops are not a constitutional part of the General Conference, 
why do they meet and preside by requirement of law"? Why is their signature neces- 
sary to the validity of the Journals and the authority of official documents? Is the 
Presidency of the General Conference no part of it] In every organic sense is not the 
President the head of the body] Can this be true without his belonging to the body] 
Bishops are ex-qfftcio, by right of office, Presidents of the General Conference, and in 
that body are constitutional representatives of the Church at large. The very constitu- 
tion of the General Conference includes the presence and Presidency of a Bishop. In the 
Bishops' address of 1840, all the various "judicatories of the Church" are recognized 
as "constitutional ;" of course the Presidency of the General and Annual Conferences 
are among the constitutional arrangements alluded to. About a Bishop's right to speak 
or vote, we shall not contend. We are only anxious to show his constitutional relation 
as President of the body. Placed there by the constitution to jt7res2!<Ze as the end of the 
appointment, whatever means may be necessary to accomplish the end, he is constitu- 
tionally allowed to avail himself of, as an obvious incidenlal right, and beyond this it is 
believed no claim has ever been made. The constitution places a Bishop, having com- 
mon oversight of the whole Church, in the General Conference, and at its head, as the 
representative of the general departments of the government, and especially the one to 
which he more appropriately belongs. Under the old General Conference regimen all 
the Traveling Preachers in fall connedion are declared to be members by right. Were 
the Bishops in full connection or not] If yea, then they were members. It is not 
meant to say the President of a General Conference is a member in the sense in which 
Annual Conference Delegates are, but that the constitution makes him a part of the 
body in virtue of his right of general ovenight, which extends to the General Confer- 
ence as well as other departments of the ecclesiastical system. But other views of the 
subject bear upon the main question in the same way. 

Coke and Asbury declare a Bishop to be "the chief executor of those regulations 
made in the College of Presbyters," that is, the General Conference. The whole bench 
of Bishops in 1844, declare the Episcopal office to be chiefly executive, and the doctrine in 
fact, is coeval with the American organization. That some of the initiatory steps of exe- 
cutive administration are taken by the General Conference, and that in this way it may 
be said to possess executive power and perform executive acts is admitted, but that the 
General Conference possesses, by vested right, the general executive power of the gov- 
ernment as lately assumed in its behalf, we explicitly deny, and regard the claim as an 
arrogation of power as aOsurdas it is alarming, and calling for resistance on the basis 
of the constitution. The further claim to all power, legislative, judicial, and execu- 
tive, not expressly denied them in the six restrictive articles, is so replete with usurp- 
ing innovation, that we cannot refrain from asking the Church, even at the North, to 
look it more fully in the face, before they commit themselves to its final approval. Act- 
ing upon the ground of this claim, the reforming Mnjority of the late General Confer- 
ence, might have annihilated the entire itinerant system — all the Annual and Quarterly 
Conferences, together with all our missions, colleges, schools, benevolent associations, 
&c. If the Church is prepared to submit to such claims, it is time slie were preparing 
for eventful changes, both of polity and administration. Is there any connection be- 



142 

tv.-een the late 'putting forth of these claims, and the official declaration made to the 
General Conference by Bishops Soule, Heddinj, Andrew, Wangh, and Morris, that in 
several of the Northern Conferences little remains of the itinerant system except the 
vamel Is there evidence of an intention to consolidate the power of government in the 
General Conference, and by destroying^ the present checks and balances of the system, 
place it in the power of the Majority of that body to control the whole machinery of 
Church action' Was it necessary to elaborate these claims with chiselled exactitude — 
dove-tail them into each other, and reduce them to a science, in order to get at Bishop 
Andrew? We lay the effect before the reader and leave him to find an adequate cause. 
From 1792 to 1808, the General Conference possessed the power of the whole body 
of ministers; now it does not; it is a Church Council with limited powers; not "every- 
thing," but as Dr. Coke says, "a check upon every thing." As the claim, that the Gen- 
eral Conference creates tlie Bishop, proves to be a mere fiction, so the claim of right to 
do what they please with their own, must, as far as Bishops are concerned, go to "the 
moles and the bats" with it. Let the Majority have the benefit of their own reasoning 
in application to the General Conference. That body was created by the Episcopacy 
and Annual Conferences, therefore the Episcopacy and Annual Conferences can destroy 
it when they please! The General Conference is a constitutional provision of the gov- 
ernment, and cannot, by right, alter or override the fundamental principles in virtue of 
which it governs or performs its functions. Holding power only in virtue of the con- 
stitution, and acting beyond, and independently of its provisions, they act without 
right, and cease at once to be the representatives of the constitution. Hence, all such 
acts arc null and void. We have applied this universally received principle of consti- 
tutional law to the action of the late General Conference in the case of Bishop An- 
drew, and also in relation to a division of General Conference jurisdiction, and have 
shov.n the constitutional right of the South to resist, in the one case, and the utter want 
of it on the part of the North, in the other. That the Annual Conferences are regarded by 
the Discipline, as original contracting or confederating parties, not only in the creation 
of the General Conference, but in the constitutional government of the Church, is undenia- 
ble, from the language and provisions of the 6th restrictive article, distinctly recognizing 
the power of the Annual Conferences to change the entire government of the Church, 
even to the doing away of Episcopacy. To effect this, it is only necessary that the 
Conferences decide upon the change, and elect their delegates to the ensuing General 
Conference in view of it, and as these are the only organic bodies represented in the 
General Conferencn, unless the delegates prove recreant to their trust, it is accomplish- 
ed. The fact that the General Conference elects Bishops, by no means furnishes a pri- 
ori presumption, as has been contended, of the dependence of Bishops upon that body. 
It is a well known and common fact in the history of governments, that one branch ap- 
points tlie officers of another, essentially co-ordinate in its character. The fact in ques- 
tion does not authorize even a plausible inference in favor of General Conference pow- 
er. As the Methodist Episcopal Cliurch was originally organized, that is, by its con- 
stitution. Episcopal powers never belonged to the General Conference, and if they had, 
the very form of the government proves they must have been parted with by a;; act of 
solemn transfer, and invested in the Bishops, and of course their resumption by the 
General Conference is impossible, until the constitution is eitlicr changed or destroyed. 
To meet this difficulty, and obviate its absurdity, llie still greater absurdity is maintain- 
ed, that these powers inhere in the Bishops and the Conference at the same time, and 
may be exercised by cither, as the Conference may elect ! Can ii be necessary to reply 
to such au argument? And if so, for whose benefit? Can any one avoid perceiving. 



143 

that when, by election and ordination now, as by ordination alone, originally, Bishops 
become invested with Episcopal powers, the right to suspend the exercise of those pow- 
ers, or withdraw them, cannot accrue to their original source, unless the Bishop shall 
viol.ite the well known terms of the investment. This view of the subject has been 
sustained by the action of the General Conference. It is well known that the "sus- 
pended resolutions" of 1820 were protested against by Bishops McKendree and Soule, 
as unconstitutional, on the ground, solely, that it was taking from the Episcopacy, by 
simple rcsniulion of the General Conference, right and power invested there by the con- 
stitution, and thus destroying tiie sacredness of vested rights, beside impairing the in 
tended force and vigor of the Episcopacy, as the executive branch of the government. 
The protest was sustained by the General Conferences of 1824 and 1828, as based up- 
on good and sufficient reasons. 

The Episcopal office is a delegation of right and power, in the shape of a high moral 
trust, and unless the trust is abused by moral or official delinquency, the claim of the 
Bishop to the continued possession of the right and power invested in him, cannot be 
impaired except by a constitutional cliangeof government. Whatever may be the vaga- 
ries and shifts of party expediency, by the constitution and laws of the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church, a Bishop is not removoble, or liable to legal disability of any kind, ex- 
cept, as upon fair trial, he is found to be punishable. All the power vital to the func- 
tions of Episcopacy, is constitutional, and no portion of it merely ministerial. Those 
who maintain that a Bishop is absolutely subject to the General Conference, must, of 
necessity, maintain that the Conference possesses absolute power with regard to the 
Episcopacy, but that this is not so, we prove in a hundred different forms. The fiction 
by which it is attempted to discriminate between the office and the officer, may answer 
for declamation, but not in argument. If all Bishops are absolutely subject to the Gen- 
eral Conference, the Episcopal office is absolutely under its control. The office follows 
the officer. They necessarily co-exist. The one must be predicated of the other. The 
relations, rights, and duties of the officer constitute the office, and the attempted dis- 
tinction utterly fails, as v.?bat is now claimed in relation to the incumbent, destrot/s the 
office. 

Nothing essential to the Episcopacy was ever granted it by the General Conference, 
and therefore, by the showing of the Majority, no material power of office can be ta- 
ken from Bishops, except for causes invalidating the reasons of their election and con- 
secration. Although properly amenable to the General Conference for both moral and 
official conduct, they are, nevertheless, essentially independent, for living as christian 
ministers, and performing their duty according to law, the General Conference has no 
right to disturb them, any more than they have right to disturb the General Conference 
in the performance of its constitutional functions; the Annual Conferences, meanwhile, 
being essentially independent of both, in their appropriate sphere of action. We have 
seen the Episcopal office declared to be a trust from God, committed to the Bishop by 
the hands of the Church ; and yet the Majority claim the right to annul the grant with- 
out any alledged unfaithfulness to God or the Church, which can be presumed to de- 
stroy the reason of the grant. The office is not a gift, but a trust proper, and the only 
responsibility of the Bishop connects with the fulfilment of the trust, and the diffi'rence 
of opinion. North and South, is, ve contend the Bishop is responsible, according to law, 
they, that he is indefinitely amenable, at the discretion of a mere Majority of the Gen- 
eral Conference. Law is the standard of judgment for which the South contends. The 
North, so far as they have made themselves intelligible, substitute opinion and passion. 
In the Protest, and everywhere else, we have rigidly maintained Episcopal responsibil- 



144 

ity to all the intents and purposes of law, and those who misrepresent us in this res- 
pect, will find our High Churchism in the law, and old as Methodism withal. 

The General Conference is supremo in nothing- essential to Methodism. The articles 
of religion and standards of belief, the general rules, the Episcopacy, its plan of super- 
intendency, the right of trial and appeal of all ministers and members, pre-existed, are 
of constitutional force, and beyond the power of the General Conference. A limitation 
of its power is seen, as before, in the instance of the Episcopal office, which it did not 
create, and cannot fill. Dr. Fisk was a Bishop, so far as the General Conference could 
make him one, but still was not a Bishop in any allowable sense whatever. The "con- 
sent and imposition of hands of a Bishop," that is, the Episcnpal consecration of the 
constitution, was necessary to make him one. 

An attempt to divest of power and right, without alledged infringen^ent of the terms 
of the primary investment, must be regarded as unjust and tyrannous in all cases where 
the investment is constitutional, and during good behavior, and not merely ministerial 
and tempory, where it results from the form, and not any mere act of the government. 
The power to divest has been urged with great confidence, on the ground tliat the Bish- 
op is responsible to the Conference. Tiie responsibility is admitted, but the conclusion 
does not fallow, beyond the extent of the judicial rights of the Conference in the case. 
Coke and Asbury state, explicitly, what all know from the Discipline, that Presiding 
Elders are responsible to the Annual Conferences ; but have the Annual Conferences 
the power of removal, in consequence? All know they have not. Other views of the 
subject, which follow, will further expose this legal fallacy, as opposed to all just 
views of the subject to which it is applied. 

When it is avowed that the Church is, by organic structure and arrangement, "un- 
der the direction of Bishops, Elders, and Deacons, according to the forms of ordina- 
tion," are we to suppose that it is competent for the Elders and Deacons to supercede 
the Bishops, by stripping them of the functions of control, and so take the entire direc- 
tion upon themselves? When the General Conference of 1838 distinctly stated that 
Bishop Roberts was "not able to do effective service," and yet expressly recognized him 
as "joint Superintendent of the Methodist Episcopal Church," was it in view of office 
or labor that the joint superintendency accrued? When the General Conference, in 
1820, released Bishop McKendree from the responsibility of performing the duties of 
General Superintendent, did he cease to be such? 

The indefinite grant of power to the General Conference to expel a Bishop for "im- 
proper conduct," will require a moment's notice, as important conclusions have been 
deduced from an obviously false construction of the language, by those who have at 
least had the means of better information. Our theorists, bent upon reforming the 
Episcopal creed of the Church, insist that by "improper conduct," it is not meant to in- 
clude actions or conduct involving moral wrong, or in any way sinful in their nature 
and tendency, but mere faults of character or conduct, such as imprudence, practical 
indiscretion, &c., not implying any oflencc against the laws of Christ or the Church. 
For such conduct merely, it is stiffly mnintained a Bishop may be expelled the Church 
of God, or at least ejected from his office. We reject the position entirely, as not true 
in whole or in part ; and we insist it is as untenable, in all sound reasoning, as it is 
untrue in the theory of the law in the case. And, 1st, The position dishonors the 
word of God. The idea that a Ciirlstian Bishop may be expelled the Church of Christ, 
or degraded from office for conduct not involving moral wrong — not in any sense or de- 
gree sinful, is in direct and shameful conflict with tiie plainest lessons and truths of the 
Bible. It is not only a gross, but an inexcusable oflencc against the language and ge- 



145 

niiis. the whole analogy of christian doctrine and ethie«, as tanght in tlie scrjptures. 
2d. It is a position so .-itrditge nnd outre, so alien from all our conceptions of justice 
and right, that it can never have the suffrage of tlie good sense and sympalhie--', much 
less the high moral convictions of our common nature. The verr supposition bears 
upon its face, evidence of unkindness and cruelty. It e\iici; a man merely because he 
is a Bishop, icilhout the pale of these charities, whose extension to all is essential to 
christian character. It exhibits the government of the Church as altogether more ex- 
acting than the laws and governm^rt of God, and must in the same proportion, place 
its interests and reputation in jeopardy. 3d. The rule with regard to "improper con- 
duct," was adopted in 1734, when the Church was organized, and no other existed from 
that period until 1792, and if the construction in question be correct, during this 
wiiole term no law of the Church authorized the expulsion of a Bishop for crime, al- 
though he might be expelled for the common, if not unavoidable errors of humanity. 
The first rule was evidently intended as a general law for the trial of Bishops for "im« 
proper conduct" of any kind, from the lowest grade requiring notice, to the highest spe- 
cies of crime. Hence says Lee, in 1792, "we introduced a new rule for the trial of 
Bishops," obviously regarcJing the rule of 1784 as a law for the trial of an accused 
Bishop. We consider it a well settled construction, that the phrase "improper con- 
duct" was used in the legislation of the Church, to cover all kinds of conduct incon- 
sistent with christian or ministerial character, whether applied to Bishops or others. 
Dr. Emory evidently understood the subject in this light. He says of Bishops, "this 
superiority is accorded to them only so long as they are not judged guilty of any im- 
proper conduct requiring their degradation,''^ plainly assuming that the phrase denotes 
any immoral or other course of conduct requiring suspension from office, or expulsion 
from the Church. Improper conduct, in the law of trial under notice, is used to denote 
any kind of conduct in a Bishop, so inconsistent with the purposes of his appointment, 
and the obligations of his office, as to require the official notice of the Church. Dr. 
Bangs gives it as the sense and substance of the very law or rule in question, "if ac- 
cused, the General Conference has power to try, censure, acquit, or condemn a Bishop." 
The power can only be exercised judicially, by due means of "accusation and trial." 

The phrase, "improper tempers, words, or actions," found elsewhere in the Discip- 
line, has a perfect equivalence of meaning, and yet we know its import is so grave 
and strong as to be followed by expulsion from the Church. By turning- to the old 
Minutes, Leo's History, and contemporary records and journals, it will be found 
that the terms disowned, disynissed, expelled, and laid aside, are used indifferently and 
interchangeably to denote the same th'wg, severance from the Church. This will not 
be disputed, and the use of thesR terms will help us to an understanding of the law 
we are now examining. Dr. Bangs mentions the expulsion of several preachers in 
17SS, "for improper conduct.''' In 1786 Leroy Cole was expelled for alledged "improp- 
er conduct." (This expulsion was unjust, as the Conference admitted at its next meet- 
ing, when he was restored.) The Minutes of 1793, ask who have been disowned 
(expelled) for "improper conduct?" and we are informed James Bell was. In 1794 
Simon Carlisle, David Richardson, James Johnston, and David Yalleau, were all ex- 
pelled for "improper conduct." A short time subsequent to the organization of the 
Church, Enoch Mattson, Adam Cloud, and Thomas Chew, were expelled for "improper 
conduct." In 1792 Lee informs us, -> rule was introduced "for the trying of TrTveling 
Preachers who might be accused of being guilty of -improper conduct,"' and the definition 
of what is meant by "improper conduct," is "being guilty of some crime expressly for- 
bidden in the word of God, as an unchristian practice, sufficient to exclude a person 
19 



146 

from the kingdom of grace and glory." The legal use of the phrase has, beyond doubt, 
covered all the forms of moral delinquency, since its first introduction into the Dis- 
cipline. The rule for trying a Bishop in the intervals of General Conference, adopted 
eight years after the first, was obviously intended to supplement and explain the first 
rule, as both defective and indefinite. Coke and Asbury explain the phrase in 
the same way ; they say Ihe various means of trial to which all of us are subject, which 
applied to Bishops, is without truth or meaning, unless our construction be correct, as 
but one mode of trial would be left them, upon the construction we oppose. They also 
clearly assume, that any charge of "improper conduct" against a Bishop, to be follow- 
ed by censure or disability of any kind, can only be acted upon in due "form of trial." 
As the explanatory synonym of the phrase "improper conduct," they say '■Hyrannical 
or immoral conduct," as authorizing "severe censure" and a "change of men." "They 
are conscious the Conference would neither degrade nor censure them, unless they 
(Bishops) deserved it." "They are subject to be tried." "No Bishops on earth are 
subject to so strict a trial." "They are as responsible as any of the Preachers." The 
iAea.0^ judicial trial, pervades the whole comment. Finally, they'fepeak of Bishops as 
liable to be "expelled the Church" (not their office merely) on the charge of "improper 
conduct." From all which, it must result inevitably, not only that the construction 
put upon the phrase by the Majority, is an utter mis-statement of the law. and perverts 
it entirely from its orignal meaning and intention; but that all the ingenuity and arti- 
fice expended upon the labored attempt to show that a Bishop of the Methodist Episco- 
pal Church may be laid aside, divested of office, or even expelled the Church, for con- 
duct not involving moral delinquency of any kind, must fall to the ground, without 
claim to any thing like reason or credibility. If correct in our premises and conclu- 
sions, the former of which will be found in the law and history of the Church, and the 
latter we think legitimate and necessary, it will be perceived at once, that the principal 
warrant of the Majority in the prosecution of Bishop Andrew, is utterly destroyed. 
They had no such right, discretion or warrant, as contended for, and proceeding 
against him as they did, not only invaded law and right in his case, but adopted a prin- 
ciple of action with regard to others, placing in manifest jeopardy, the dignity and val- 
ue of the Episcopal office. 

It may be proper to recur to the question of amenability. About the fact that a 
Bishop is amenable to the General Conference for his moral and official conduct, there 
is no dispute. We contend, however, that a Bishop is not amenable so as to be in the 
hands or power of the General Conference, afl^ecting his office or the exercise of its 
functions, as specified and secured in the constitution, except for conduct coming under 
the judicial cognizance of that body, by license of law pursuant to the constitution. 
To this extent he is strictly amenable, and should always be held so. The amenability 
we oppose, is a claim of right by the General Conference, to hold a Bishop responsible 
to the judgment or opinions of that body without reference to law, inasmuch as it is the 
supreme council of the Church, and its will must be law at any time. In support of this 
theory, great reliance is placed upon a recent statement of the Bishops, to the eff'ect, 
that the authority of the whole executive administration proceeds from the General 
Conference. If this be conceded, it does not conflict with our reasoning. Still it is 
quite certain the Bishops did not mean what it is attempted to make them mean. They 
knew that the original investment of power in the executive department, say Episco- 
pacy, was not by the General Conference or body of Preachers; they had no such power 
to part with, but inasmuch as the constitution invested in the General Conference the 
right to select the incumbents of the Episcopal office, with the additional right to rcgu- 



147 

late the Episcopal charge, provided they disturbed noihiwg essential to Episcopacy or its 
plan of superintendency, as a pre-ordinate power and department of the government, 
it is entirely proper for the Bishops or any body else, to speak of the authority of the 
executive administration as derived from tiie General Confeience. Limited and under- 
stood as above, it is true, and doubtless best that it should be so. We would not have 
it otherwise. Meanwhile, the vested right of the chief executive officers of the gov- 
ernment, are protected by the constitution, which merely makes the General Conference 
the organ of investment wiihoMl right to disturb or recall, except for improper conduct 
.manifestly defeating the ends of the investment, and then only in virtue of the judicial 
trust committed to the Conference by the constitution. Hence in the same connection 
the Bishops speak of their responsibility to the Conference as a "judicatory" and "con- 
stitutional tribunal." When they speak of their "superintending agency," they must 
mean under the constitution and not the General Conference, in any conclusive sense. 
They knew ih^legal subjection of the General Conference to the constitution, to be the 
same as theirs, and therefore, that any claim of control except such as we have speci- 
fied, could not be admitted by them, without the betrayal of a constitutional trust. Hence 
again, they speak of "all things being done in every official department of the Church, 
in strict conformity to the constitution and the Discipline." 

That the Bishops did not mean a subjection to the General Conference, the test of 
which shall be the mere will of that body, apart from the constitution and laws, stands 
out in intelligible relief, in the same connection from vvhich we have quoted. They say, 
"the primary objects of MetV official department in the Church, were \o preserve, in the 
most effectual manner, an Itinerant ministry — to maintian a uniformity in \hQ goxemment 
and discipline, in erery department." The kind of responsibility they readily admit is 
that for which we contend — "responsible for the discharge of the duties of their office,''^ 
is their language; "the office," they add, "you have committed to us." While the 
Bishops knew themselves responsible to the General Conference for their conduct, both 
as individuals and officers, tiiey knew equally well that they were not dependent for 
right and prerogative, as they derived these from the constitution, independently of the 
General Conference. It is certainly not very complimentary to the intelligence of the 
electors, to suppose they would make men Bishops so grossly ignorant of the constitu- 
tion as to suppose that the rights and powers of the Episcopacy depend upon the Gen- 
eral Conference. Sandford, speaking of Episcopal responsibility to the General Con- 
ference, says, "a Bishop is responsible for his christian, morale and official conduct." 
Dr. Bangs says, "he is amenable to that body for his moral and official conduct." Dr. 
Elliott says, "from them" (we have shown in what sense only,) "he derives his powers, 
and to them is accountable for tiie exercise of them. Also, "He is accountable for the 
proper discharge of his duties." Dr. Bangs assumes that "those who invest another with 
ecclesiastical orders, on condition that he possesses certain qualifications and continues 
to discharge the duties of his office, have a power and a right to divest him of it when- 
ever Ae /a j7s ^o/wZ/jZ these conditions." Bishop McKendree says, "I consider myself 
justly accountable, not for the system of government, but for my administration, ready 
to answer for pas/ conc^wci." Dr. Elliott, in vindicating a Bishop against the absurd 
idea of any except legal responsibility to the General Conference, declares, "if they 
had no Discipline to bear on his case, then he could not break their laws, as they did not 
exist." Sandford accounts for the Bishops' amenability to the General Conference by 
remarking, "it possesses judiciary powers respecting the Bishops." Bishop McKen- 
dree, reasoning expressly upon the responsibility of "Bishops, Elders, &c." affirms, 
"the suspending power is clearly restricted to such crimes as are expressly forbidden 



14S 

in the word of God." The Bishops have recently said of themselves, tliat "they are 
amenable to the General Conference not only for their moral conduct and the doctrines 
they teach, but also for the faithful administration of the government of the Church, 
according to tlie provisions of the Discipline." These and innumerable other declara- 
tions to the same effect, constituting the staple opinions of the Church on the subject of 
Episcopal amenability to the General Conference, show, with a conclusiveness which 
cannot be affected by argument or sophistry, that the new theory of the Northern school, 
is in all its essential parts and tendencies, subversive of the old, and directly at war 
With the constitution of tiie Cliurch. No man can read the arguments and avowals of 
those to whom the new theory is justly patented, without perceiving that there exists, 
and always must, the most invincible repugnance between the commonly received doc- 
trines of the Church, and the innovations it is so boldly attempted to substitute in their 
place. We say substituted in their place, for the two theories cannot co-exist in 
practice. 

Coke and Asbury remark, "if ever through improper conduct the General Conference 
looses confidence, in any considerable degree, (in the Bishops,) they will upon evidence, 
&c." And again, "if ever the Episcopacy evidently betrays a spirit of tyranny or par- 
tiality, and this can be proved before the General Conference, &c." Showing that both 
of the last arguments submitted, are fully sustained by the Bishops. They understood 
improper conduct to mean misconduct of any kind, such as "tyranny, partiality, im- 
moral conduct," and they further and distinctly let it be known, that the "evidence" and 
"proof" of trial "before the General Conference," is the only mode of testing the is- 
sue. We have already noticed for another purpose, unequivocal evidence that the vievir 
we take of this subject is correct. "The letters of Episcopal ordination" held by the 
Bishops say, "set apart, consecrated, and ordained, to the office and work of a Bishop, 
so Zyng' as his spirit, practice, and doctrine are such as become the gospel of Jesus 
Christ, and he shall submit to and maintain the Discipline and order" of the Church. 
A claim of right then to disturb, remove, or degrade, while the Bishop submits to law 
and order, and maintains them in administration, involves the claimants in the charge 
of falsehood as well as faithlesness, for in the "letters" above, they are sacredly pledg- 
ed to the contrary of what they claim. But these "self imposed" restrictions, remova- 
ble at will, are supposed fully to secure the General Conference against all legal em- 
barrassment. The expedient is, so says the argument of Bishop Hamline and others, 
if a law be needed the General Conference can, in a moment, make it for the occasion. 
And the result is, the restrictions restrict no body — nothing. The Conference has un- 
limited license — there is no restriction at all except as the resolves and acts of the Con- 
ference at different times, become the antipodes of each other, and limit by ol)struction. 
Let this claim be applied to the assumed legislative, judicial, and executive supremacy 
of the General Conference, and in theory we have as veritable a tyranny as ever existed 
on earth, and the only safety of the Church will be in the intelligence and virtue of the 
men composing the body. They may not do wrong, may not oppress, but that they 
have, so far as this theory of government is concerned, as good a right to do wrong as 
to act otherwise, no one can doubt. Dr. Bangs says, "the acts of the General Confer- 
ence are tried by the restrictive regnlaticns, which define and limit their powers." 
The Dr. certainly doos not mean that they are their oum triers, but that their acts are to 
be tested by (lieser'jles, and the other departments act in accordance with tlie conclu- 
sions at which they arrive in the case. The President presiding over the deliberations 
of the body, by appointment of the constitution, is there for the several purposes, as 
has been seen, of general oversight— as the representative of the Church at laro^e in its 



149 

various departments and interests — to preside and moderate in the sittings of the body, 
and always respecting and asserting its rights, nevertheless superintend there as 
elsewhere. He is not there for the direct but auxiliary purposes of legislation and ju- 
dicial procedure. Hence, in judging of the acts of the body, his position is materially 
different from that of the elected — the local and sectional delegates of the body, and the 
reasoning which would apply to them, cannot apply to the constitutional head of the 
assembly. He is in the body, with constitutional right, to further the objects of its 
appointment. 

We have shown, in various ways, that the imposing pretence that the Church met 
in 1808, to frame a constitution, can only mean, so far as the truth of history is con- 
cerned, that it was the purpose of the Episcopacy and Annual Conferences, as the prop- 
er contracting departments and parties, not to allow the project of a Delegated General 
Conference to go into effect without adding to the constitution, proper restrictions and 
limitations, with regard to the rights and powers they would be likely to assume. 
It was the specific object of that Conventional Conference to prevent the preferment of 
any such claim in behalf of the General Conference, as that against which we are now 
protesting. The imposition of these restrictions was eminently the condition upon 
which a Delegated General Conference was alloiced to exist at all, and yet this body, 
thus limited and restricted, claims to determine whether they will abide constitutional 
restraint, as imposed by others, or not rather create constitutional prerogative as tliey 
may stand in need of it. And to render this sliding scale of constitution and law eve- 
ry way facile and easy of management, it is assumed that the only restrictions upon 
the General Conference are "self-imposed," and may, of course, at any time be over- 
ruled bv prerogative! These are the miserable inventions, such the sans culotic radi- 
caliim, for protesting against which we are denounced as reckless "divisionists," en- 
gaged in a crusade against the unity of the Church, which they themselves had destroy- 
ed, while we were praying them to withhold their hands ! We appeal to facts. Let 
the developments of this Review, and others equally important, be calmly and careful- 
ly weighed, and we are content to abide the issue. In every aspect in which we are 
able to view this exhorbitant claim of General Conference power, we regard it as ab- 
surd and dangerous. There certainly must be something in the constitutional struc- 
ture of the government to check and counterbalance such a state of things. And, in 
part, as we have shown, wg believe beyond cavil, such check and resistance must be 
found in the Chief Executive OtKcers of the Church. We do not mean power to con- 
trol the General Conference, except so far as to check and moderate, and keep it within 
tiie limits of the constitution. When it is obvious, for example, that an act of the Gen- 
eral Conference is subversive of constitutional right, it is the plain and undeniable du- 
ty of the Bishops, as constitutional officers of the whole Church, to resist the wrong in 
a proper manner, and not give sanction and currency to a grave constitutional abuse, by 
transforming a legislative or judicial error into an executive general evil. In this 
way the subject vvould be brought, in due form, before all the departments of the 
Church, equally independent, under the constitution, and the proper correction of the 
evil would, in due time, be the probable result. If Bishops are allowed to have judg- 
ment and conscience in the premises, how can they act otherwise than as we suggest? 
When the General Conference, in the judgment of the Episcopacy, have not only fail- 
ed to represent the constituent bodies electing them, but so acted as to inflict deep and 
permanent injury upon them, are not the Bishops, as having the general oversight of 
all, allowed to dissent, and in a proper and respectful manner appeal the case for rem- 
edy to other departments of the Church? It is not intended to claim that any express 



150 

grant gives full and perfect right to this effect. It is_^not alluded to as matter of right, 
except upon high moral grounds, connected with the reasons and aims of government. 
The power of the suspensive veto, at least, must be found sorneichere in every good gov- 
ernment, in evei-y government, in fact, which is not a tyranny, or liable to become one 
at any moment. If practicable, we prefer that the power of check and balance should 
be found in each department, with regard to the rest — any other; but if this be not 
practicable, owing to the peculiar form of the government, or is wanting for any other 
reason, the right will, of necessity, often accrue in extreme cases, and, from the nat- 
ural operation of cause and effect, to the Executive department, much more frequently 
than the others. When we say of necessity, we mean, it is often necessary to accom- 
plish the objects of the constitution, and when this is the case, the right is inherent in 
the system, whether it exist as a formal grant or not. It is well known to have been 
the opinion of Bishop McKendree, that without the exercise of this power, as occasion 
may demand, the executive branch of the government of the Methodist Episcopal Church 
could not maintain its effectiveness. It will be recollected by many, that Bishop Mc- 
Kendree, upon a time, firmly and peremptorily refused to ordain a man elected to El- 
der's orders, by the New York Conference, because, as he alledged, they had infringed 
the constitution in his election, and, as a constitutional officer, he refused to endorse 
the proceeding. We have seen he acted upon the same principle in 1820, with regard 
to the "suspended resolutions ;" and it is known, that in 18:24 he had a measure brought 
forward, the object of which was, to give to the Episcopacy, subject to proper restric- 
tions, the right of the negative we are noticing : not with any view to lessen the final 
power of the General Conference, but to protect the rights of the Episcopacy and An- 
nual Conferences, and secure an effective well balanced administration of the govern- 
ment. This view of the subject is introduced merely by the way, to bring before the 
reader the rights and powers of Episcopacy, not on scriptural grounds, but as an ele- 
mentary principle of the government of the Church, and vitally connected with its ef- 
fective administration. Under the belief, formerly, that the claims of Episcopacy, in 
the Methodist Episcopal Church, both as it regarded ordination and jurisdiction, were 
prescriptively based upon divine scriptural right, we rejected the claim as destitute of 
any thing like fair or reasonable warrant. When led, however, to examine the subject 
in the light of a conventional arrangement, in the original organization of the Church, 
and subsequent adjustment of the different parts and powers of the government, the 
whole subject of necessity assumed a different aspect, and approval or disapproval turn- 
ed upon the subject matter of two simple questions : 1st. What are the rights and pow- 
ers conventionally secured to the Episcopacy, and by consequence constitutional, in the 
government of the Methodist Episcopal Church? And, 2d. Viewing the ecclesiastical 
system of the Church as a. grand missionary organization, are these rights and powers 
necessary to secure an effective administration of the government, and tlie ends pro- 
posed by the system? Having satisfied myself with regard to the first, and answered 
the second affirmatively, I immediately adopted the general views I have since enter- 
taiT.cd, and with which I am involved in this controversy. Since the termination of 
my connection with tiie former controversy, seventeen Annual Conferences, whose ad- 
ministration has been approved by five successive General Conferences, (of all whicii I 
have been a member,) have extended to me official public approval, as wortiiy of their 
confidence and that of the Churcli. I have proofs in my possession, that durinf the 
whole period in question, I have had the friendship and confidence of the first men of 
the Church, East, West, North, and South, always including a decided majority, if not 
the f»ntire bench of Bishops. Under these circumstances, and not to extend a notice of 



151 

myself, to which I am driven by gratuitous insult and injury, I must be permitted to 
say to my recent vilUfiers through the medium of the press, that if, at whatever addi- 
tional expense of truth and decency, it will be any gratification to their malignity to 
proceed further with their abuse, humble as lam in reputation and resource, I can af- 
ford to let tliem. 

If we understand the claim of General Conference power, it is that all the power of 
the government is in its hands. It is true the restrictions are admitted to throw some 
difficulty in the way, but it has been seen that the removal of the difficulty is conve- 
niently provided for. If we do not misconceive the recent revelations on this subject, 
the doctrine is, that the power of government 'proper is in the General Conference, un- 
divided with, unmodified and unmediatized by any other department of the system. It 
would be an easy task to show that hundreds of postulates and assumptions, and long 
trains of reasoning, of Northern origin, during the last ten or eleven months all tend 
to this, and we cannot help thinking, it is our deliberate conviction, that a claim like 
tliis, to make, execute, and judge, in relation to all laio, is as preposterous a claim to 
absolutism in the structure of government, as any known in history. The reason is 
obvious; there is no mediatizing, qualifying power in any other branch of the govern- 
ment. Now whether the supposed binding force of the restrictive rules be admitted 
or not, we have seen and shall have occasion further to show, that this claim of power 
is subversive of the only theory of government we have, and is likely soon to result 
n consequences greatly injurious, if not fatal to its usual vigor of administration. 
[ have had no communication with any of the Board of Bishops on the subject, but am 
perfectly satisfied from my knowledge of the men and their general views, that a ma- 
jority of them are of the same opinion, and regard the government, in this respect, as 
.n a course of revolution, which mayor may not be arrested and turned aside from the 
irimary objects had in view, by the movers and supporters of the project. It will thus 
be seen, important issues are involved beside the slavery question. The spirit of 
change and innovation is abroad. Distinct spheres of authority in the Church are in 
conflict. Immense masses of mind and feeling are antagonizing in different directions. 
The swell of the earthquake is beneath us. Under such circumstances, how, by what 
organ or organs is the Church to act, in remedy of the evils already upon us? What 
can a General Conference do? A General Conference brought on our misfortunes. Its 
action in regard to Andrew and Harding, as the pretext for more decisive, and as we 
have proved, unconstitutional and lawless movements against slavery, has destroyed the 
confidence of the South. The North, under the dictation of the Press, are rapidly 
placing themselves in direct hostility to the General Conference, on the question of 
separation. What then could a General Conference do? Precisely what the Baltimore 
and Illinois Conferences expect them to do, re-assert the lawfulness and necessity of 
the proceedings of the last General Conference, on the subject of slavery, and by new 
legislation attempt to nullify its contract with the South, as to the division of the 
Church. All Delegates would be elected upon strictly party grounds, and all action 
iiad in view of party purposes ; I mean the great objects of the parties respectively, on 
the two great questions, slavery and separation. I see no power or likelihood of rem- 
edy, but the high moral certainty of increased evil by such an arrangement. The par- 
ties North and South are being so compactly formed and firmly pitted against each 
other, that it is entirely probable a majority of the old Delegates would be returned, 
and if not, men of the same sentiments and feelings beyond doubt, and it requires but 
little discernment to see what the result would be. I have from the first, believed that 
mere General Conference Agencj, can avail nothing toward an adjust meut of the diffi- 
culty. 



152 

At tho close of the General Conference my hopes of adjustment were connected with 
the Annual Conferences and the Episcopacy, but the Annual Conferences are now com- 
mitted North and South; Bishop And reiv is a. Rebel, nnd Bishop Souk a. Tyrant by 
proclamation, and the tone of my hopes in these directions is greatly lowered. Still, 
I am individually disposed to favor any plan of adjustment likely to give us a state of 
things preferable to the present. J will go in for testing or trying any measure of ad- 
justment or compromise, by means of General Conference, Annual Conference, or 
E-piscopalinlerposiiion, the only constitutional methods to which we can appeal, as the 
government precludes the Local ministry and people, beyond the right of advice and re- 
monstrance. I will go in for any or all of these, provided it can be done without af- 
fecting the ultimate obligation of the contract now existing between tlie Northern and 
Southern Conferences, on the subject of separation, should the attempt fail. This is 
certainly /(j//- and just in regard to both parties. Let us be assured, then, upon the 
basis of reliable slipxilations, that such effort or efforts at compromise, shall not, in the 
event of failure, afTect in any way the validity of the General Conference plan of sepa- 
ration, by operviUr.ga forfeiture of right, or destruction or abatement rf obligation in 
relation to it, and I will favor compromise in any constitutional form in which it is at 
all likely to succeed. If the unimi of the Church be the object, no man can object to 
this. So far, however, as an attempt at adjustment is intended to release the Norlli or 
South from the contract in question, or may tend to place in jeopardy the interests of 
that contract, I am bound in truth and honor to resist it. I repeat, however, that if 
assured as above, that in the event of failure, the parties North and South are to /ct/Z 
hack upon the rights and obligations of the contract in question, I will wait any length of 
time, will perform any labor, will do or suffer to any extent, suggested by the reason or 
fitness of things, to place the Church where it was on the 1st of May, 1844. JMeanwhile, 
committed as I am in company with the Southern Delegations in the late General Confer- 
ence, and every member of the late Kentucky Conference, (save one) to principles and 
issues, plain and unambiguous, found in the Declaration and Protest, the Southern Ad- 
dress, the provisional arrangements for the Louisville Convention, and the ofiicial re- 
corded action of the Kenlucky Conference, and from which there is no honorable retreat, 
except upon avowal of a change of opinion and conviction, upon the merits of the ichole 
subject, I cannot consent to any course or measure, the effect of which will be to unbind 
the North and disfranchiseihe South, in view of the obligations and rights of the plan of 
separation. Any thing short of this I am ready to support. I know manv who approve 
the general course of the South are opposed to any conclusive action by the Convention, 
fearing it will preclude the hope of future adjustment. Such persons have our respect 
and sympathy. But it is worthy of grave enquiry, whether such action, to the extent of 
formal organization to go into effect contingently, is not the only available method of 
getting at compromise at all, unless the South arc prepared to compromise by uncon- 
ditional submission, to exparte dictation. This last conclusion and course have, i)eyond 
all doubt, been resolved upon by small portions of the Church in Kentucky, and else- 
where upon the Southern border. Whether the same indifference to the principles and 
interests involved in this controversy, will mark any considerable portion of the 
Church, remains to be seen. That it is the purpose of many to call and clamor f(>r 
compromise, who merely wish the South Xo forfeit their rights unHer \he couiract of 
separation entered into by the ])tirlies of the last General Conference, is well known 
and understood, and against this intrigue and such treason, it is lioped the South will 
be suflicicntly guarded. In a word, we would say to the North, we are ready to abide 
the contract between us. in the shape of a legislative onactmeut of the General Con- 



153 

ference, or if there be any hope of compromise, we will ogree to suspend the fulfilment 
of its stipulations, until the trial is fairly made, and should the attempt fail, both par- 
ties must abide the issue of the General Conference plan of separation. 

The claim of unlimited arbitrary power by the General Conference, is so offensive 
to the genius of our government, we know not how to dismiss it ; and convinced as we 
are that a virtual co-ordination of powers among the departments in the general ad- 
ministration, is essential to the stability of the government, we must ask the attention 
of the reader to some additional arguments. We have shown that by the whole 
amount of the Episcopal power of the government, the claim in question is of necessi- 
ty reduced, as thai is incontestably proved to be an elementary power of the govern- 
ment, not only before the General Conference existed, but from the organization of the 
Church, and before it had a Presbyter in it. As the General Conference did not cre- 
ate the Episcopal office, so it never had the power to fill it. It may select a person to 
fill, and in case the Church has no Bisiiop, may select Presbyters to consecrate one, but 
this right and power of consecration are not derived from the General Conference, but 
from the power of ordination in the Presbyters, derived from their oicn Episcopal ordi- 
nation. In consecrating a Bishop, they represent not the General Conference but the 
Episcopacy, the Bishop or order of Bishops, from whom they essentially derived the 
right and power they now exercise. Add to this, what is in proof in the general argu- 
ment, that the constitutional (I do not say scriptural) validity of the consecration, turn- 
ing in a very material sense upon the prescribed form of consecration, which form is a 
part of the constitution, exists, and is of binding obligation, independently of the 
General Conference. This ground, too, of General Conference claim, so cxultingly 
relied upon, is further overthrown by the fact, that in the consecration in question, the 
General Conference has no ivill or discretion of its own, except in the mere matter of 
saying who is to be selected for the office. The constitution tells them that they "shall 
elect," and that the Elders "shall ordain.'' It is not the Conference but the constitu- 
tion which directs how the Episcopal power of ordination is to be exercised by Presby- 
ters, in a case of extreme necessity. The constitution is careful to show that no Epis- 
copal r^ivver (instead of all, according to Bishop Hamline,) belongs to the General 
Conference. When our first Bishops say they are at the "mercy" of the General 
Conference, and also the "little Conference" or committee of nine for the trial of 
Bishops, they do not mean, as we have proved by their own declarations, that no laiv 
is interposed between them and the General Conference, but that the Conference, as 
the tribunal to try them, could keep or break the law by a just or unjn^l application of 
it, and hence ywa7cia%, they were fully in the power of the Conicicnce. The old 
General Conference, however, had a vague claim to power in this respect, which the 
present delegated General Conference does not possess, the amendment to the constitu- 
tion in 1808, expressly restricting it. The General Conference has no power over a 
Bishop on the groiind of prerogative, not a particle. The power they have bv the 
Constitution we do not object to ; it is asserted in the Protest and admitted by the whole 
South. Take the sum of Episcopal powers :— the right to preside in the General and 
Annual Conferences; to fix and control the appointirient of all the Traveling Preach- 
ers ; the exclusive right to ordain ; the power of the general executive administration, 
in the intervals of the Conferences especially; to travel at large and superinteiul the 
spiritual and temporal interests of the Church, throughout the entire connection, to- 
gether v/ith the incidental rights and powers necessary to accomplish those objects. 
These are all protected by the constitution, and without its violation the Gen?ral Con- 
ference cannot reach them, so as to "cha.nge, alter or destroy." The only power re- 
20 



154 

cognized by Bishop Hedding, in the positions quoted from him on this subject, which 
can possibly affect our reasoning, is in the body of TrateUng EMers, and cannot be 
brought to bear upon the constitutional claims of Episcopacy, except as before shown 
in this argument. The inferences from Bishop Hcdding, confounds the body of Travel- 
ing Elders with the General Conference, as a representative council of the Church. 
The constitution keeps them separate. If it be said this council represents the Eiders 
in question, it is sufficient to notice in reply, that it equally represents the Deacons, 
and is no more a delegation from the Elders than from the Deacons, so that the one 
cannot be substituted for the other in argument, without a misstatement of facts, as 
well as logical confusion. The inference of power here, from the premises assumed, 
is further invalidated from the fact, that the power claimed never did belong to either 
the body of Traveling Elders or the General Conference, and could not therefore be 
cededoT invested by either. After the institution of Episcopacy and its full investment 
with all its present rights and powers, that can in any way be deemed essential, it was 
conventionally agreed to deposite the right to elect Bishops, and the judicial power to 
try them in case of delinquency, wnth the General Conference, and this is the only 
controlling power the General Conference has in the premises. The facts of history 
indeed, compel us to go farther than this : it is not only true that our Episcopacy did 
uot originate with the Eldership, but it is equally true, as just seen, that it is perpetuated 
by them to a very limited extent only, for 1st. The General Conference is the Repre- 
sentative Body of the Deacons as well as Elders, and 2d. Its power to perfttuate is 
but auxiliary, being confined to mere election, which invests no right of any kind in 
the person elected, beyond saying he may be invested with right and power by those 
having authority to make the investment, after election by the General Conference. 
Thus showing, that in every representative sense the Deacons divide the power assum- 
ed, with the Elders, and that in both, and after all, it is merely adjunctive to a more 
substantive power, which the constitution has bounded as a separate sphere of action. 
The protest in assuming Episcopacy to be a co-ordinate branch of the government, in- 
tended to convey the idea usually conveyed by such phrase, that it is an independant 
department, a separate sphere of executive power and action, standing in the same re- 
lation to the constitution that the General Conference does, that is to say, as the Epis- 
copacy cannot constitutionally invade in any way, the rights and powers of the Gener- 
al Conference, so the General Conference has no constitutional right to touch, in any 
form, the vested rights of the Episcopacy. The co-ordination we assume, is not to be 
judged of by any estimated equality of powers, when the different departments are sim- 
ply compared with each other, but in so far as they are independent nf each ether, in 
their relation to the constitution. This is the view of the Protest, and we show it to 
be the doctrine of the Church. The very language of the constitution avows it in the 
3d restrictive article. When Bishop Hedding speaks of the body of Traveling Elders 
having power to "reduce, limit, or transfer to other hands" Episcopal power, he is not 
speaking of General Conference power, but merely of the constitutional right of the 
Annual Conferonces to change the form of government, and do away Episcopacy en- 
tirely. This however, is Annual not General Conference power, and beside, it no more 
belongs to Elders than to Deacons, as wc have seen. We ask attention to this fact 
as materially affecting the adverse argument. All the authorities urged by the Reply 
to the Protest, except the misconceived opinion of Bishop Hedding, are inapplicable and 
out of place, because based upon the old order of things, before the powers of the Gen- 
eral Conference were restricted in 1808. 



155 

Powers before conceded, notconstitutionalljs or in any accredited form, but apparent- 
ly by common general consent, were in 1S08, expressly denied to the General Confer- 
ence by a constitutional limitation of the powers and rights of that body. On this ac- 
count, much that is said by Coke and Asbury, in their Notes on the subject of General 
Conference power oyer the Episcopacy, is now entirely inadmissible as an exposition of 
law. and it is the sheerest "sophistry" to appeal to it as such. The same is true as to 
the opinions of Asbury and McKendree, in 1808, as quoted by the Rev. J. Young, and 
similar quotations made since in the Northern papers, from Dickins and Watters. 
These concessions all date back to an order of things not in existence since 1808, and 
can, therefore, have no weight whatever against the force of our general position on 
this subject. All the power now found in the General Cnoference over the Episcopacy, 
amounts to nothing more than that Bishops are legally and strictly responsible fur their 
conduct as Ministers and Bishops, and that it is competent for the Conference to lay 
them aside, by judicial process, whenever they shall be found guilty of misconduct 
either as men or officers, which obviously requires it. This power the Conference ought 
to have, and it is enough to control the Episcopacy and prevent the introduction of any 
serious evils into that department. We are unyieldingly opposed to any power in the 
Episcopacy by which the Church can be oppressed, but we are not less opposed to any 
such power in the General Conference or else where. To prevent such a result is our 
only object, and we essay to do it not by proposing any thing new, but by showing that 
what our positions desiderate, is already found in the government. We do not claim 
as much power for the Episcopacy as belongs to the General Conference. We are con- 
tent that the Episcopacy shall have incomparably less power. Let that body, as the 
legislature and high Court of Appeals, be "supreme" in the parlance of the Church. All 
this may be so and yet our reasoning be correct. The co-ordination of the Protest, so 
far from meaning the alledged "supremacy" of the Reply does not denote even an ap- 
proach to fgj^fl/i'y of power, and in jurisprudence is never used for such purpose. It 
means simply, existing independently of oilier departments by the organic laws of the 
government. In the same way geographical departments may, and often do, in Church 
and State, exist under the same organic laws, and in this sense the Kentucky Confer- 
ence applies tlie term "co-ordinate," to the proposed Southern organization, and laio and 
fuhlic opinion will sustain the construction. Such an organization, should it take place, 
will not be claimed to be the Methodist Episcopal Church, as before stated, to the exclu- 
sion of the Northern division, but authorized by that Church to exist under rt/^ 27s organic 
laws without the exception or change of any one of them, it will be to all the iments 
and purposes of Church unity, a "co-ordinate" division of the collection of Ministers 
and people in the United States, known as the Methodist Episcopal Church. This 
Church has no corporate or other unity except what arises from having the same creed, 
liturgy, laws, and moral discipline, and as none of these are affected by the division pro- 
posed, the real unity of the Church cannot be affected by the contemplated change. The 
unity contended for by those who, renouncing the authority of the Church, have thrust 
themselves into the place of the General Conference, and are attempting to dogmatize 
the Church into submission, is without meaning or application, beyond the mystic charm 
of a mere name. Upon the principles of reasoning they adopt, there can be no union 
between them and the British. Irish, and Canadian connexions of Methodists, for 
these, with the same faith, liturgy, moral laws, and Discipline, are not the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, and must, therefore, be aliens, by the logic brought to bear upon the 
South. If the union so lustily fought for, without being defined or made intelligible, 
be moral and spiritual, the mere name is nothing, but applies to all christians of what- 



156 

ever nnme. If it be the union of a multitude with the same faith, the same rites and 
ceremonies, claiming to be subject to the same organic laws and moral regulations as 
to life and conduct, then all the denunciations against the South, as "seceders and 
schismatics," must be traced to something less sacred than truth and principle, for these 
can lend no support to the injustice and outrage under which we are suffering, without 
even being charged with offense against any law of the Church, and for only proposing 
to do, what the hiffiiest authority of the Church has declared all who choose may do 
"WITHOUT blame!" Were we offenders equally with the North ; had we violated the 
constitution and laws of the Church ; had we dishcmored its ojicial pledges and trifled 
whh lis most sacred stipulations ; had we assailed ihe constitutional tenures of office, 
and claimed the right of takin<r hack what we never bestowed and never had it in our 
poiL-er to bestow ; it might be different with us ; we might feel, not as now ; as it is,' wo 
know ourselves to be greatly wronged and deeply injured, and cannot respect as we 
wish to, either the motives or the means embarked in the effort to degrade and destroy 
us. But to return. It may be urged, that our view of the theory of Methodist Church 
government, will bring the Episcopacy or Executive Department in conflict with the 
General Conference. In our judgment, however, it is the only mode of avoiding it, 
and we are perfectly satisfied that upon the plan we oppose the two cannot co-exist in 
effective action. We regard it as entirely important that the General Conference should 
have all the power now properly belonging to it. We would not deprive it of a parti- 
cle of its present power or right. What we except to, is the late exorbitant claim of 
power, (as by Bishop Hamline,) never before asserted in behalf of it, at least since 
1608. Tiie General Conference must possess the necessary power to hold in salutary 
check cny tendency of the Episcopacy to assume or usurp what does not by right of law 
belong to it, and such power it certainly has at present, and we think in just and ade- 
quate degree. And to accomplish the same purposes of good to the Church, it is equally 
necessary that in the constiiutional distribution of power, the Episcopacy should not 
depend upon the will of the General Conference for right and prerogative. Hence the 
constitution places these beyond the control of the General Conference. We have 
shown with perhaps sufficient force and clearness, that the General Conference right of 
election, has no connection with the rigjjts and powers of Episcopacy. These were 
pre-settled in the constitution, long before the existence of a General Conference or the 
election of a Bishop in any proper sense, for the informal election of Asbury in 1784, 
was perfectly null as to any right of election, there being neither Elders nor Deacons' 
in the body, e.xcept the Wesleyan "assistants" of Coke and Asbury, and a merely lay 
election could certainly confer no clerical or ecclesiastical right. It'was entirely proper 
to consult the wishes of that body of good and sensible men, but they had just admitted 
to Mr. Wesley, they had no right to elect any man to clerical orders of any kind. 
Nothing is clearer than that Bishops are elected by the General Conference without de- 
riving any power or privilege from it. The General Conference gives nothing consti- 
tuently connected with the office, and can take nothing away, e.xcept judicially. Regu- 
lations relating to the ways and means of Episcopal administration, not affecting the 
rigiits of office, are made by the General Conference, with full and perfect powers, and these 
reduce or increase Episcopal power in fact, according to their nature and character, but 
our argument turns entirely upon things vital to Episcopacy, as a fundamental power. 
The Northern argument against tiic claims of Episcopacy, as set forth from the fathers 
and founders of the Church in this sketch, which we are compelled to collect from differ- 
ent sources and collate as best we can, is so entirely miscellaneous in character and 
Protean in shape, we find it difficult to give suitable form and consistency to any exami- 



157 

nation of it. The critical reader will find himself a little disserted in this respect oc- 
casionally, but when he recollects that we are only pledged to general outline views, he 
will perhaps, after discounting such real or seeming irregularity, meet with sufficient 
point and concentration in the argument, as a whole, to enable him to judge of tlie true 
merits of the question at issue. 

Is it possible for any person of intelligence and candor to examine tlie questions in 
controversy respecting Methodist Episcopacy, without being struck with the contrast 
between the new Episcopal theory and the old, as we have found it in the staple pro- 
ductions of the Church? In the common convictions and standard writings of the 
Church for sixty years, Episcopacy has been a distinct and well defined organism, so 
constitutionally interwoven with the government, as to give namo and character to the 
Church. According to the new theory, it is a mere "ministerial executive regulation" 
of the General Conference, which they can dispense with or continue at pleasure. With 
"the fathers," it is the great primary principle of Church order, expanded into an ac- 
tual department of the government, so connected wit!) the other departments as to se- 
cure energy and harmony of co-operation, and yet so independent of them in the ful- 
filment of its high trust, that except for crime or mal official conduct in the incumbents, 
it cannot be changed from what it is, unless by a change of the constitution. The re- 
cent re-construction of the old theory teaches, that the General Conference may find it 
necessary either to discontinue tlie "regulation" of having general superintendents, or 
may so regulate the fact and plan of Episcopal oversight, as to have the supervision of 
whatever kind the Conference may prefer. It used to be thought, that Episcopacy was 
the most original elementary agency in the organic formation of the Church. The late 
discovery is, that the General Conference originated both Episcopacy and Episcopal 
authority. The old doctrine was, that Episcopacy pre-existed and united with the An- 
nual Conferences, in giving birth to the General Conference, and finally that these as 
\.he superior author it !;,hy imposing proper restrictions upon it, provided amply for the 
security of the parties creating it, as one of the principal organs of Church action. 
This error is now corrected, by its being ascertained that the General Conference is a 
self constituted body, limited in right and power only by "self imposed" restraint. The 
former doctrine was, that in every original sense. Episcopacy was derived from Wes- 
ley — that ordination by Wesley gave birth to it, and that election by the lay Conference 
of 1784, was not even an incident in its institution, but a mere "receiving" of uhat 
Wesley had provided for his societies in America. The contrary of this is now assum- 
ed with imposing boldness, and it is contended that Episcopacy is of conventional Con- 
ference origin. Former opinion admitted the conventional character of the Conference 
of 1784, but was careful to discriminate, that in whatever other aspects it was conven- 
tional, it had no agency in the institution of Episcopacy. Now, how-ever, it was a prin- 
cipal agency, for without this assumption, the subsequent agency of election would lose 
the virtue claimed for it. It was prevalently understood formerly, that as the General 
Conference was the last organic department erected in the construction of the present 
government of the Church, it could have had no participation in producing the others 
and none of their powers except by transfer. Now the claim is, it possesses all the 
power of both, because the old departments conceded to the new, upon its establish- 
ment, that it might elect and try Bishops for "improper conduct." and say when a new 
Annual Conference shall be created, although without any right or power to 7nake a 
Bishop or organize an Annual Conference. The Episcopacy being in the full vigor of 
maturity, before the projection of the General Conference system, it did not occur to 
the founders and authors of the economy of American Methodism, that the latter would 



158 

claim paternity and jurisdiction in relation to every thing connected with the former. 
Tliat this is now done, however, few will attempt to deny. We used to think, as a 
Church, that in Episcopacy was to be sought the constitutional headship of the govern- 
ment. How far below this it is now attempted to reduce it, may be judged of by the 
mass of evidence we submit. The Church was of opinion that from 1792 to 1803, the 
General Conference had too much power, and that it was necessary to restrict it by con- 
stitutional prohibitions. Now the latter claims more power than it was supposed to 
possess before the reduction of its powers, when consisting of "all the Preachers in 
full connection" — that is, all the Deacons and Elders in the Traveling Ministry. As 
parties to the constitution, the old doctrine was that each department is rigidly subject 
to the regulations of law. Now it seems to be thought, that the legislative department 
cannot act unlawfully, as it can in "two minutes," supply itself with law in any emer- 
gency. The very existence of the restrictive rules, proves clearly, that the former doc- 
trine was, that should tlie General Conference obviously violate the constitution, it is 
the right and the duty of the Episcopacy and Annual Conferences, to interpose and resist. 
It is now the doctrine, however, that the General Conference is the only judge of the 
constitutionality of its own acts. The old theory, which impresses itself upon the 
very face of the constitution, laws, and administration of the Church, that the executive 
power of the government belongs essentially to the Episcopacy and Annual Conferen- 
ces, is superceded by the assumption of general executive power in behalf of the Gen-- 
eral Conference. Our fathers, as we have shown, knew no better than that the Episco- 
pacy and Annual Conferences derived their rights and powers from the constitution, and 
had all they now possess, substantially, beside much they have parted with by conces- 
sion, before they thought of creating a General Conference. Their sons, it seems, are 
to be better taught, and all right and power of whatever kind, is to be credited to the 
General Conference. Tlie whole Church has always regarded Annual Conferences as 
independent organic bodies, subject only to General Conference control as law directs. 
The new theory annihilates this independence entirely, by assuming that the absolute 
right of control in relation to tbese bodies, is in the General Conference, and that they 
exist only by its permission. Instead of which, nothing is plainer, than that the Gen- 
eral Conference is by direct provision of the constitution, under the control of tlie An- 
nual Conferences, in tiie last resort, and it will be seen by every one how intimately 
Episcopal oversight and its executive rights and powers, are interwoven with the An- 
nual Conference system. Thus presenting the checks and balances to which we have 
adverted. Until recently, it seemed to be well understood, that as the Church, or rather 
the Episcopacy and Annual Conferences, were of mature age and possessed the whole 
oflicial authority of the Church, before they organized the General Conference, and as 
they conceded none of their fundamental powers to that body, the General Conference 
could have no claim to disturb them in the functional exercise of their powers and 
riglits. In this, however, modern enlightenment shoivs them to have been mistaken. 
It lias always been well understood, tliat limited legislative and judicial power, as well 
as some of the powers of general administration, had been invested in the General Con- 
ference by the organic regulations giving it existence. It has always been admitted too, 
that in matters not vitally affecting tlie independant functions of the Episcopacy and 
Annual Conferences, that is, in things incidental and modal in relation to legislative, 
judicial, and administrative rigiUs, as invested by law, it is competent for the General 
Conference to give and take away, and it has occasionally done both. Eut this view of 
the subject differs materially from the one which allows the Conference to regard its 
own will, at any time, as the only law of action in the case. The Church, for more than 



159 

half a century, has published to the world, that its Episcopacy was derived from Wes- 
ley — that his rights and powers of ordination and superintendence were transferred to 
Coke and Asbury, Bishops of his own selection and constitution, he having consecrated 
the former and commissioned him to consecrate the latter, without any the most remote 
allusion to any organic action by the American Preachers, in the institution of Episco- 
pacy. The Church having likewise published to all during this whole period, that the 
only act of the lay Preachers of the day, vi-asto "receive" the Bishops of Wesley's ap- 
pointment, as the superintendents of the new Church ; thus proclaiming the institution 
of Episcopacy to be the first creative act of the new organization. In view of these 
facts, it must strike all as strange and unaccountable, how Episcopacy has become a 
derivative power in relation to the General Conference. Would Dr. Coke have pre- 
sumed or dared to ordain Mr. Asbury upon his election by the lay Preachers of 1784, 
without authority from Wesley "? Would Asbury have presumed or dared to accept or- 
dination upon such a basis? The answer is negative in both cases. All know that 
neither would have presumed so to act. And yet the now popular argument for General 
Conference right, respecting Episcopacy, relies mainly upon this election for its sup- 
port. Failing to prove this election valid, as inevitably they must, it is irresistably 
certain that the General Conference has no claim of superiority over Episcopa- 
cy on the ground of what is so often called "election by the Presbyters." And as 
Episcopacy existed in full and effective force, valid and ample as now, with- 
out deriving a particle of right or power from the "College of Presbyters" as Coke 
and Asbury say of the Eldership, after they had created it, under authority from Wes- 
ley, it shows most conclusively that General Conference election can confer nothing in 
any way essential to the Episcopal office. The ordination service (itself a part of the 
constitution) is evidence of the plainest kind, that no Episcopal right is conferred by 
by mere election. The ordination certificate attests the same fact. The design of 
election, which is both proper and important, is confined to the suitableness and qualifi- 
cations of the incumbent. We have shown that it is in no sense an investiture. It 
merely authorizes his elevation to the Episcopate by ordination. Both the power and 
form of ordination pre-date and are independent of our ^Jresnzf Presbyterial election, 
and beyond General Conference control. Against this, it proves notiiing to say, no 
Bishop can be made without t!ie consent of the General Conference. This is admitted, 
and we are as ready as our opponents to admit the fitness and importance of the ar- 
rangement. It secures the important result that Bishops are not allowed to select their 
associates, and that none can be ordained except approved by a majority (we wish it 
were a two-thirds majority) of the General Conference. Still it proves nothing against 
our argument for reasons before given. Suppose wo say the General Conference and 
Episcopacy together, cannot make a man a Bishop without his consent'' Does this make 
the will of the man in any way constitutive of the office? Test the matter in another 
form ; ceasing to ordain, would not our constitutional Episcopacy perish, despite a 
thousand elections? We have seen the Episcopacy and General Conference existing 
in constitutional connection, as independent departments, except so fiir as this inde- 
pendence is qualified by the terms of union. They exist and act together, the one the 
Head the other the Body. Each has separate duties with which the otiier may not in- 
terfere, so that essentially they are co-ordinate branches of the government, although 
essentially, they exist and operate in a state of mutual inter-dependence, as do all co- 
ordinate branches of the government. Each constitutes a distinct organism, and has a 
separate anatomy, a system of its own. 



160 

The power of each is derived from the constitution, the nature of the general sys- 
tem. The distribution of power is regulated by organic law. If the Bishops offend, 
there is the law to correct and punish them. The General Conference cannot, with all 
its latitude of power and right in other respects, exceed the restrictions imposed upon 
it, by the dopaiunents wliich gave it being, without a breach of trust as well as violation 
of right, and the remedy must be found in the counteractive forces of the system. The 
Episcopacy has powers not derived from the General or Annual Conferences. The Gen- 
eral Conference has nothing but what it derived from the Annual Conferences and Epis- 
copacy. This is not introduced to prove Episcopacy above the General Conference, (no 
part of our reasoning implies this) but merely to show that the General Conference is 
not every thing, and possessed of all power, as lately claimed by the opponents in this 
argument. Were the Episcopacy and Annual Conferences acting together, disposed 
to usurp power, as we believe the General Conference has lately done, tiie latter with 
its entire power, miglit be overthrown in a short time. By direction of the power 
creating it, and without the permission of the Annual Conferences and Episcopacy, it 
can only meet once in four years. It cannot call itself together or meet at will, and 
should the executive department, embracing the Episcopacy and Annual Conferences, 
refuse to execute its wishes, the government would be at an end ; and this further 
proves the inter-dependence of the departments, and that the supremacy of the Gener- 
al Conference, to the extent contended for, is a mere fiction, and always must remain 
one, under the present constitution. We prove that the Episcopacy is strictly and 
properly a co-ordinate branch of the government, by showing that all the other branch- 
es, much less the General Conference alone, have no right or power to do it away, ex- 
cept by a change of the constitution. Each department, although connexional as to 
the rest, is separate and independent, that is, protected against the invasions of the 
other branches by the constitution. The whole of section 4th, in the Discipline, is 
strictly organic law and has all the force of any part of the constitution, or else the 
General Conference has Jio poiver with regard to Episcopacy of any kind, except as 
■MSMr/'erf by gratuitous interference. The grant of power to "make rules and regula- 
tions-'/or the Church, excepts in every thing important, both Episcopacy and its plan 
of oversight. For this there existed the plaitiCL^t and most irresistible reason. Not 
only had the General Conference done nothing toward tiie institution of Episcopacy, 
but even tiie Church had not. Its existence dates back before the birth of either. It 
was the first grand substantive arrangement, around wliich all others subsequently 
clustered and assumed organic form. The whole machinery of Church administration 
received life and motion from it. The primary action and continued impulse of the 
whole system are traceable to it, and as the government has always been organized, 
would become defunct without it. We are compelled to think the view of the sub- 
ject we propose is the only one which can possibly relieve the Church from the charge 
of having a most illiberal and tyrannical government, so far as its theory is concerned, 
whatever uray be the character of its practical administration. We present, in our 
attempt to exhibit the government as we find it, a nearly equal distribution of its pow- 
ers between the Episcoj)acy, Annual Conferences, and the General Conference, the 
General Pastorate being essentially adjunctive to the two former, although for conve- 
nience, and in view of some purposes and functions peculiar to it, generally recogni- 
zed as a separate department. And amoug many other inferences of tlie utmost im- 
portance, we thus reach the principal one had in view in the course of our reasoning, 
that a Bishop of the Methodist Episcopal Church is not in the power of the General 
Conference, except in its judicial capacity as a court of trial, proceeding' against him 



161 

upon a charge of improper conduct, and this for the general comprehensive reason, 
that the jus proprieialis as it regards tlie c/uV/ cnnslituiional offJeer of the Church, is 
not in the General Conference, but in the several departments of the government 
equally, by direction of the organic laws of the entire system. See an able and inter- 
esting argument on this subject, by the Rev. Dr. Latta, which has yet to be answered. 
We know it will be said that such a general view of the subject as we have taken, 
amounts to "Prelacy, Popery, Puseyism," and so of the rest. With this we have 
nothing to do. The charge recoils from us upon the Fathers and Founders, the Apostles 
and Pillars, the Defenders and Advocates of tlie Church, as a true Episcopal Church, 
unless it can be made appear that we misrepresent them. We shovv, we believe con- 
clusively, that we simply adhere to constitution and law, the principles and opinions 
of the Church since tlie first day of its organization. If the system be wrong, be it 
so; the arguments remain unaffected. Our only task has been to show what the system 
is, and before we are abused as aiming at the projection of an Episcopal "supremacy," 
let our arguments he answered, as we have attempted to give them, in the language of 
reason and sobriety, and for the purposes of rational conviction. No amount of decla- 
mation and assertion, unsupported by argument and evidence, no tempest of personal 
abuse, no attempt at sneer and banter, can move or aflfect us. We must be over- 
thown on the ground of argument, or remain unvanquished. This is no boast. We 
mean simply, that on the subjects upon which we have written, we have offered an ex- 
tended series of arguments which strike us as satisfactory and conclusive, and before 
any man or number of men can obtain any advantage of us, it must be shown demon- 
stratively, that the reasons and arguments in question, ous^ht not to have impressed us 
as they have. 

Left to the undisturbed current of my own thoughts and feelings, I should not have 
taken it for granted that this Review was destined to attract, in any unusual way, the 
attention of those arrayed against me, in the conflict to which it relates, but already 
assaulted in advance witii Vandal injustice and want of truth, I have been led to sup- 
pose, from a pre-judgment so every way gratuitous and illiberal, that the unmanly 
malevolence that could not wait to know whether it was uttering truth or falsehood, 
might probably give me a notoriety upon which I should otherwise not have calculated. 
I shall await and note results with care and patience, until it may become necessary to 
attend to them. 

A few items, more or less personal to myself, and yet intimately connected with 
some of the bearings of this discussion, and I have done. I wish to say first and dis- 
tinctly, I have not written, dictated, or suggested a single line on the merits of the 
controversy, or any particular part of it, or in relation to any person or persons con- 
nected with it, to which I have not attached my name. The various charges, there- 
fore, suggestions and insinuations, which have appeared in Northern papers, intended 
to implicate me in this respect, are at least as utterly unjust as the fact that they are 
false can make them. From what motives I have been thus assailed, without having 
by any act, or any part of my conduct, furnished any reason or course, or semblance 
of either, for the assaults made upon me, it will not perhaps, be difficult to determine. 
The men in the principal instances, are a sufficient comment upon the motives, and 
accordino-ly I have received numerous communications from Northern as well v.3 
Southern sources, assuring me these attacks are well understood and properly appre- 
ciated, as having their origin in personal malignity and party purposes. 

I first heard of Bishop Andrew's connection with slavery and the appeal of Har- 
ding, in Baltimore, on my way to General Conference, in April last. I did not lake 

21 



162 

my seat in that body until the sixth day of the session. By this time the parties 
North and South were pretty well defined. The two or three first meetings of the 
Southern Delegations after my arrival, I did not attend. I was anxious to learn the 
true position and purposes of the parties. I was soon induced to believe, not only that 
the cases of Harding and Bishop Andrew would bring on a conllict between the North 
and South, but that new ground would he taken by the North, on the main question, 
whenever these cases became the occasion of discussion and action. I early sought to 
learn the opinions and views of men, likely to exert no little influence with what had 
usually been known as the "conservative" party, and was surprised to learn, that they 
were decided and active in the approval and furtherance of a course, which I was satis- 
fied the South could not submit to. Circumstances compelled me to believe, that the 
old compromise ground of the Church, on the subject of slavery, had been or was 
about to be abandoned. A large number of Conferences, and thousands of individual 
petitioners North, had addressed the General Conference, remonstrating in effect, 
against the provisions, and demanding changes infringing the purposes of law. Under 
these circumstances and such an aspect of things, I met the Southern Delegates, and 
availed myself of an opportunity to say to them, in substance, that T had come to the 
painful conclusion that it was the settled purpose and policy of the old Anti-Slavery 
Conservative party, to take ground with the Abolitionists against the South, by de- 
clining any longer to assert and maintain the compromise law of slavery, as generally 
understood by the South, and especially as explained by the preceding General Confer- 
ence. That so far as I had been able to understand them, they were off the compromise 
of the Discipline, and likely to form new associations, injurious if not fatal to South- 
ern Methodism. That it would be necessary for the South to be watchful and firm as 
a Minority, or they would find themselves in a position fearfully detrimental to the 
interests of the Church in all the Southern Conferences. I then stated, that in view of 
the petitions before the Conference, a large portion of which were new and peculiar in 
their character, and other evidence not less convincing, to which my attention had been 
directed, it was my opinion that a plan existed, more or less matured, the object of 
which was the subversion of the slavery compromise, and the effect of which would be, 
if carried out, to reduce the South to the necessity of adopting one of three courses. 
1st. They must submit to the outrage regardless of Southern rights and interests ; or 
2d, appealing to the only constitutional means in their power, assert those rights and 
interests by remaining firmly upon the basis of the Discipline, and claiming the pro- 
tection of law: or 3d, must go or be forced off as a secession, without any interest in 
the Book Concern or other funds or property of the Church. After these remarks, I 
requested to know of all present, publicly and explicitly, whether it was their purpose 
to abide by the Discipline as it was on the subject of slavery, and all without a single 
dissentient having so pledged themselves, I assured them I should be most glad to find 
myself mistaken as to the fears and conviction I had expressed, in reference to the 
plan or purpose to whicli I had alluded. 

I carefully avoided any allusion which might in any way implicate members of the 
General Conference beyond the mere fact, that I was obliged to think many of them 
were pursuing a course directly calculated, wliatever their motives and purposes might 
be, to bring about the result I feared. And in proof and illustration of this, having 
made the remark with regard to many, I S'tated that one who had been long looked to 
and regarded as especially the friend and champion of the South, had avowed opinions 
and urged a course of action in relation to both Harding and Bishop Andrew, which 
would further the objects of the plan or purpose I had brought to their notice, as effec- 



163 

tnally as thouo^h he were the Cataline of the conspiracy. It was my intention to say 
distinctly, that I believed the purpose existed North to disturb and destroy the com- 
promise of the Discipline, as discussed in these pages, and that the position of Dr. 
Bond, as reported to me in relation to the cases of Harding and Bishop Andrew, would 
contribute directly to the accomplishment of the object. I had heard from several dif- 
ferent sources, that Dr. Bond had said that the action of the Baltimore Conference in 
Harding's case, must, and doubtless would be sustained by the General Conference; 
that Bishop Andrew had not kept faith, or had acted in bad faith in relation to those 
who had elected him ; they selecting him because he was not a slaveholder, and he af- 
terwards becoming one, and yet holding office ; that he was a dishonored man or had 
acted dishonorably ; that he must resign or be deposed, as nothing else would prevent 
Northern Conferences from secession, and meet the demands of Northern public opin- 
ion ; that the General Conference had full power to depose or lay aside Bishop An- 
drew ; and that it might be done by merely striking his name from the Minutes and 
Church Records ; that for such a course, the Conference had precedent in the instances 
of Wesley and Coke, or at least one of them; and that this or something equivalent 
must be done, whether the South would submit to it or not. These statements, which 
I give in substance and meaning, and not perhaps in the precise language and form in 
• which they were uttered, were reported by different persons as coming from Dr. Bond, 
and induced me and many others to believe, that his intended course would as directly 
and effectually tend to overthrow the compromise of the law of slavery, as the purpose 
or plan believed to exist in the North. The recent public declaration, that I stated a 
plan existed among Northern members of the General Conference, approved and encour- 
aged by Dr. Bond, to drive off the South as a secession, with a view to deprive them of 
their equitable interest in the Book Concern and other Church properly, is as false as 
any statement can be, because utterly devoid of truth. My reasoning upon the facts 
stated, and in relation to the choice of evils we should probably be called to make, did, as 
a matter of course, call attention to tiie loss of Church property, as consequent upon se- 
cession, should we be driven to it, and I accordingly invoked the South on this, as well 
as other accounts, not to allow themselves to be provoked to such a step. I urged it 
as my belief, that the law of slavery had been conspired against, and should it turn out, that 
I had anticipated events, and understood movements correctly, nothing would be left the 
Minority of the South, but unconditional submission, constitutional resistance by solemn 
Protest, and appeal to the conservative powers of the Church, or finally, voluntary or forced 
secession with forfeiture of rigiits as before. All this I did without disguise, and still be- 
lieve I was correct. The whole current of events since the hour I made the statement, 
goes to show that I did not greatly, if at all, miscalculate. Individuals and parties 
have acted and continue to act. as I anticipated. The plan or purpose to which I invok- 
ed the reluctant attention of the South, has been ever since in course of development, 
and the somewhat indirect but essentially auxiliary influences, to which I made allusion, 
are visibly increasing with the progress of this great Church difficulty. My only ob- 
ject in alluding to Dr. Bond as I did, was to make the impression, that whatever might 
have been the hopes of the South, connected with him and other leaders of the so cal- 
led conservative party, that ground of safety, was, in my opinion, to be relied upon no 
longer. To understand my true position, in reference to the subject matter of this ex- 
planation, it is necessary to enquire, 1st, was I mistaken with regard to the facts 
upon which I predicated my opinion? 2d, was that opinion a fair and natural infer- 
ence from the facts] Beside, the mass of evidence in various forms furnished in this 
Review, making it entirely certain that a purpose did exist in the North, no longer to 



164 

submit to the law of compromise, as explained at length by tlie General Conference of 
1840, the full and proper proof is found in the uniform language of the petitions, "that 
tlie General Conference would ta};e measures entirely to separate slavery from the 
Church" not the Episcopacy, not the Traveling Ministry only, but the xchoJe Church. 
On presenting these innumerable petitions from nine Conferences and some ten thous- 
and persons, the Northern Delegates stated, without any attempt at concealment, and 
with almost stereotyped uniformity, not only that the petitioners (generally) were well 
known to them, were respectable, and as intelligent and pious as any in other portions 
of the Ciiurch, but always and especially that they petitioned from principle and convic- 
tion, that it was matter of conscience and of settled purpose that they did so, and 
finally, that they would "never rest until they obtained what they prayed for." The 
same purpose has been avowed and published unequivocally and repeatedly in Zi- 
on's Herald and other papers, by large and influential portions of the Church, 
Ministers and people, including delegates of the last General Conference. The 
fact of the purpose charged in my statement, has in every thing material, been 
communicated to Dr. Bond, and published by him for the information of the Church and 
world. So far then as this item is concerned, who can doubt as to the facts? But did 
Dr. Bond avow the opinions and make the statements attributed to him? That he did I 
have never doubted. They were heard and reported not by a single individual only, but 
by different persons. The most, if not all of them, have been since assumed and as- 
serted, admitted or implied, in the editorials of his paper. The entire course and tem- 
per of Dr. Bond, have been in keeping with them, and the internal evidence in the case, 
as well as that of witnesses, endorses the correctness of our original information. Let 
the impartial reader now take the plan or purpose, which we prove existed North, not 
to abide by the slavery compromise as understood by the South and affirmed by the 
General Conference, and take also the position of Dr. Bond as Editor, and the former 
friend and advocate of the South, and how would the opinions avowed by him be likely to 
affect tiie purpose in question? Would or would not the opinions and views ascribed to 
Dr. Bond, and known to be concurred in to a g-reat extent, by the Conservative party 
generally, be directly calculated to further the Northern purpose we have noticed, to 
destroy the good old via media of the Church, on the subject of slavery? Was not the 
inference that they icould, both natural and necessary? If not, we are at fault. But 
if they were, then we cannot be blamed, for all will admit that the interests involved 
rendered it necessary that Southern attention should be called to the subject immediate- 
ly. When Dr. Bond saw proper to contradict a report, which he said was in circulation 
as coming from him. and ihe substance of whicli was that a plan had been formed by 
Northern members of the General Conference, to force the South into secession, &c. 
Dr. Smith, supposing he might allude to my remarks or statements to the Southern 
Delegations, as just detailed, replied, in substance, without consulting me, that the 
statement made by Dr. Bond had not been made to the Southern Delegates ; that the 
two statements were essentially variant, and that it was necessary to disabuse the Con- 
ference of a wrong impression, by informing them of the true issue, affirming that "it 
had been stated over and over again, in terms that led to the conviction, that it was the 
purpose of many in the Conference to pursue measures, which must necessarily result 
in a division, and that in declaring their adhesion to these measures, they had used lan- 
guage wliich justly entitled them to a disclaimer. That course they had adopted with 
Bishop Andrew, and it was of tliis he and his Southern friends justly complained." 
This challenge, wliich implicated members of the General Conference beyond any state- 
ment of mine, was not met by any one. Dr. Bond said that with this position he had 



165 

nothing to do ; that is, with my position, fairly stated by Dr. Smith, at a time and un- 
der circumstances when the evidence in the case could have been had in a few minutes, 
Dr. Bond had nothing to do. Dr. Smith not only charged before the General Confer- 
ence all that I had before the Southern Delegates, but went further, implicating mem- 
bers of the body, from all allusion cu whom I had carefully abstained. Why was not 
the issue of Dr. Smith upon my statement met] The fact that the statement of Dr. 
Smith was not challenged, was, under the circumstances, a public admission of its 
truth. Was Dr. Bond under no obligation to attend to Dr. Smith's statement, which in 
fact was mine, because not in accordance with his] If not, any more could I be con- 
sidered as under obligation to attend to Dr. Bond's, knowing, as I did, that I had never 
made any statement of the kind, and especially as Dr. Bond had not charged it upon 
me] Not entirely satisiie(], however, with this mode of settlement, I immediately called 
on Dr. Bangs and Rev. Mr. Sehon, both of whom had addressed the Conference on the 
subject, and enquired of them, whether they had any allusion to me in their remarks, 
and also whether they understood Dr. Bond to have] They both promptly and expli- 
citly assured me they had none, and that so far as they knew or believed, Dr. Bond had 
none. I then went to the Rev. Jno. A. Collins, the friend and guest of Dr. Bond, and 
enquired of him to the same effect, with respect to Dr. Bond, when with equal explicit- 
ness he assured me he did not believe he had. I then supposed it unnecessary to pay 
any further attention to the subject, and thought no more of it, until from motives and 
for purposes about which I am not disposed to speculate, it re-appeared in the columns 
of Dr. Bond's paper, with additional features of distortion and misrepresentation. 

It was my purpose to publish early on this subject, after the General Conference. But 
numerous friends. North and South, requested me to forbear, in the hope that some ac- 
tion might be had by the Northern Conferences, meeting in rapid succession, which 
might tend to allay excitement and prepare the way for an adjustment of difficulties. 
I therefore determined to remain silent until after the Kentucky Conference. A serious 
indisposition from the 15th of September until the 1st of December, rendered me incapable 
of the labor of preparing for publication. ]\Ieanwhile, the subject in controversy began 
to assume new and more eventful aspects, in the Northern division of the Church, and 
I did not wish to meet ihe actual party position of the North, until it was fully and fairly 
taken, in action as well as argument. While, therefore, there was a prospect of addi- 
tional light on the subject, I was unwilling to deprive myself of the advantage of it, 
by premature publication. These reasons have been satisfactory to myself, and as no 
one else has any rights in the premises, I may, of course, expect them to be to others. 

I promised to perform the task "at my earliest leisure," and I beg to assure all con- 
cerned, that on the basis of that promise, I could, for want of "leisure," have postponed 
the publication to a much later period. 



/ 

?A0 5 



• 0' 



* 3 N ^ _^ , .„ „ '/' ^ * » , X - \V ^ , „ . 



X^^.. 






.^.d^ 



•\Y 






^■^^o. 



0' 



>^ c^ 






0> 






>' s^ 






^^A v^ 

v^^... 



'''H 



.. . o ' AV 



,0 






.# 



^^ "^. 



■^"^ 



->. 



<-^ ^ , ^ ■«> ,A 












•v^ 



•:>. 







^. 


"^A 


v^ 






'^ 


vO 


o 






^ 


\ 


^■ 
















.■> 










,0- 










X, 










y 


\ 


-■ 


% 


/ 


■=6- 






^^" 




-- •" 




'' 1 1 








-Vu 




a '^ 



oV ^ * « * •< 

-■' — ■-'\'yi. ■'- -^ > 

^0 O. t 



A' ,j> 



ci' 




^. C^ 



v^^ "^^^ 






o> V 



V 



. N 0- „ '/ . 



'^ 
'^^ .^' 



,-<^ 






- "^-^ A>J"^ .'^F?^^' 






^0 O, 






.^^^ 



^•s* 



--^r..^^' 






.^^ 



^^^ 



a\ . o i< c ^ '^ 



V 






8 1 ^ 



<- \^ 






.0 c- ^ -• 






- '^^ 



X' 






.0^' 



>V '-i 



/.-•'. 



<-- 



^V v-^^ 






..^H^ 
•■•, 






"^^ .\v' 



%^^' 

.x^^' ''^-^. 



< 'o.y^^ <} 



^^ c ^ <• * 



^ <. . -' 



^A v^ 









V .r. 






^^.^ 









,^5 -n^. 















A\^ . 






I -^ A^ O '^ T » '^ 



s!> -T^c 




iiiiii' 



ill 





i 




